صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

yet Roderick Borgia has been reproached with having, after 1456, as well as before it, led a dissolute and scandalous life.

No candid historian denies or even questions that Calixtus III. was a pious and venerable pontiff; he must, then, have been ignorant of the scandalous irrégularities of his nephew in creating him a cardinal, and continuing to him his favor. Was this pontiff deceived in regard to him? It is in relation to this point that is to say, to the debauchery of Roderick-that Burchardt (if all that is written in the Diarium be from his pen), Tomasi, Paul Jove and Guichardini unanimously cry out against the scandal, but they do not agree either about the circumstances or their enormity. Guichardini is the least positive of all, and contents himself with the authority of the expressions, "it is said," or, "it is reported." The others do not uniformly give even the name or the condition of the girl or woman who had had criminal relations with the young military officer-relations which were, it is said, afterwards continued. One of them speaks of Rose or Catherine Vannozza or Zanozza; another makes her a young girl, and still another a married woman. There is no accord among them as regards the name. or the prenomen, nor yet as regards the condition or rank of this female; nor do they mention who she was, where she was born, or when or where she died. And yet it is the implacable enemies of Alexandercontemporaries as they were—who leave us in such uncertainty and obscurity on a point which it would have been easy to settle, and in the elucidation of which they were themselves personally interested.

Let us admit for a moment that Roderick Borgia had of Vannozza the children it is reported he had of her: namely, first, John or Francis, who became Duke of Candia, a city of the kingdom of Valencia; secondly, Cæsar, the most celebrated of all; thirdly, Jeoffrey, Prince of Squillace; fourthly, the famous Lucretia Borgia; fifth, a child whose name has not descended to us. It follows from the testimony even of his enemies, that he had all these children more than twenty years before he sat on the pontifical throne, and before he received

holy orders, which, it appears, did not take place until 1478, when Sixtus IV. nominated him bishop of Alba, and afterwards of Porto. Strictly speaking, then, one may reproach Alexander VI. with the irregularities of his youth, but he can reproach in nothing the ecclesiastic, the bishop, the pope. The irregularities of the military officer, if he has truly repented of and made atonement for them, cannot fall on the priest. Such irregularities have not prevented the Augustins or the Ignatius Loyolas from becoming eminent saints.

But there is another version of this matter which still more completely justifies Alexander. The learned Marini in his Dictionnaire historique says, that, according to some respectable historians, this pope had of Julia Farnese, in his youth, four sons and a daughter. Orlandini states the same thing in his history of St. Francis Borgia. It is to be regretted that neither of these authors mentions formally that Julia Farnese was legitimately married to Roderick Borgia, but there are certain facts which leave but little doubt on the subject-that is to say, provided he had any children by her at all. The historian, Philip de Commines, nowhere, in his memoirs, calls the reputed children of Alexander bastards, and it is well known that this historian is not sparing of this epithet, even in regard to the children of kings, when there is reason for using it. The tableau of the reign of Charles VIII. compiled from contemporary writers, and inserted in the Petitot Collection, also omits this epithet.

If it be probable that Julia Farnese is no other than Vannozza, it becomes equally probable, from the reasons just adduced, that she was united to Roderick in lawful marriage; the interested and often deceptive testimony of Paul Jove, of Tomasi, and of others, could at most only cause some doubt on the subject. But even these doubts disappear when it is remembered that the Farneses were a Roman family on a par with the Borgias, and that an illegitimate union prolonged for so long a time between two members of these houses would have been impossible. If a Farnese had forgotten her honor, her high birth, and her virtue, there can be no doubt that an implacable hatred, an Italian vendetta, would for a

long time have animated her relatives against her seducer. But it is the exact contrary of this that is shown by history, even as it is given by the very enemies of Alexander. We see Cardinal Farnese, afterwards pope, under the name of Paul III., charged by Alexander with the most delicate and important missions, and devoted to this pontiff at a time when there was a talk of deposing him—that is to say, when Rome was occupied by a French army. Another Farnese, Angelus Ferdinand, served in the army of Cæsar Borgia, and was killed in his service. Have we not, therefore, every reason to believe that if Roderick Borgia had children their birth was irreproachable, that he was legitimately married to Julia Farnese, and that he did not enter into holy orders until after her death?

If the preceding explanation be rejected-an explanation which so naturally accounts for the conduct of Alexander—it will be necessary to admit hypotheses which will lead from one absurdity to another. The enemies of this pope represent him as a man of rare prudence, who sought for whole years to deceive the cardinals in his regard, walking in the streets of Rome with his eyes modestly turned down, passing his days in visiting churches, monasteries, and hospitals, doing all kinds of good works; and yet they would have us believe that this hypocrite, this man so cunning and so prudent, and who prepared himself for so long a time to reach the pontifical throne by the appearance of every virtue, entertained an illegitimate commerce with a woman for several years, led her everywhere he went, acknowledged his children publicly, and finally held to public view his own infamy, and made his scandals a matter of glorification! What inconceivable contradiction! What folly, what incredible audacity! To say of him that he sought to impose on the cardinals by a feigned piety, and that at the same time he acknowledged his bastard children, is to award him a patent for stupidity, and to consider one's readers worthy of being deceived. In wishing to prove too much, the enemies of Alexander have annulled their pretended proofs; their absurd contradictions reduce to nought their testimony.

6

To readers of good faith who cannot yet bring themselves to believe how such a mass of calumnies could have been invented, we will say with the Dublin Review, "What is really true of Alexander VI. is what but few writers are conversant with. The common crowd of them are contented to accept vulgar tradition; there is not one in a million who thinks of making serious investigations in the matter. The few persons of those who have made them have seen the falsity of the accusations; not only have they found them false, but they have seen that there is not even the least reason for yielding them credence. Never, perhaps, was there less pretext for calumnies than in the case of Alexander. Created a cardinal by a pious and venerable pontiff, he was sent by the able and prudent Sixtus IV. in a critical and important circumstance as a legate to Spain, his native country, where his character ought to have been well known. At the same time, and on a similar mission, France received the celebrated Cardinal Bassarion, whom Protestant writers represent as the most learned and eloquent, as well as the oldest and discreetest of the cardinals,' and as 'a man whose demeanor was always conformable to his high dignity.' Is it credible that at the same time the same able and sage pontiff would have employed for a similar mission a debauchee, a man totally depraved? And yet if the idea that is commonly formed of Alexander be just, he was at this period in the very midst of his career of vice! He was in the flower of his age, and in full possession of honors and of power! But this is not all. He had a rival, jealous of his good fortune, Cardinal de Pavia, who was interested in watching closely his conduct, who desired to have the honorable mission with which he was charged, and who sought to injure him by slanders. What, after all, has been said of Alexander? Nothing more than has been said of Beaufort, of Wolsey, of Leo X., of the most distinguished prelates of that period, all accused, like him, of luxury, of ambition, etc. This was precisely twenty years before he was elected pope, and consequently Cæsar and Lucretia, if they were really his children, were then born, and those who accuse him of debauchery tell us that this debauchery was public and notorious at this period of his life!"

It is evident, then, that the simple collection and comparison of pretended facts and dates reduce the calumnies to nothing. Like common perjurers, the calumniators of Alexander have gone too far; they have wished to prove too much. They have gone beyond their object, and thus they have destroyed the confidence they otherwise would inspire. Even Voltaire himself saw clearly into their falsehoods, and jeers at the credulity of those who have believed their absurd and contradictory recitals. And, strange to say, there are still Catholics who believe them, and who are attached with an astonishing tenacity to those false traditions which infidels themselves make objects of their pleasantries!

It remains proved, therefore, that if Alexander VI. had the five children attributed to him, he had them a long time before he became pope, and before he entered into in holy orders, and he had them by legitimate marriage. There was nothing, consequently, in his youth, or in his mature or old age that could have betrayed in him a life of licentiousness. or immorality.

We dare go further, and, with the Dublin Review and M. Chantrel, assert, that it is by no means certain that Cæsar, Lucretia, and the others attributed to him, were his children at all. It is an incontestable fact, that nobody heard of his being a father, until after the outburst of indignation against him, caused by his energetic government, although his being so ought to have been public and notorious for at least a quarter of a century. On the elevation of Cæsar to the cardinalatea dignity which he afterwards resigned or was dispensed from -some witnesses attested on oath that Cæsar and Lucretia were not his children, but, undoubtedly, those of his brother It may be said that these attestations were false, that these witnesses perjured themselves; but it is certain that nobody said so then, and is it not rash and unreasonable to reject testimony thus given under the sanction of an oath, because of contrary assertions made later by interested or inimical parties? It is well known that it was the custom of the popes, in those troublous times, to choose as a general some one of their relations, most commonly a nephew possessing energy and

« السابقةمتابعة »