Collected Works of Rafael Sabatini

by Rafael Sabatini

  A form of hypnosis accompanies your study of the subject — a suggestion that what is so positively and repeatedly stated must of necessity be true, must of necessity have been proved by irrefutable evidence at some time or other. So much you take for granted — for matters which began their existence perhaps as tentative hypotheses have imperceptibly developed into established facts.

  Occasionally it happens that we find some such sentence as the following summing up this deed or that one in the Borgia histories: “A deal of mystery remains to be cleared up, but the Verdict of History assigns the guilt to Cesare Borgia.”

  Behold how easy it is to dispense with evidence. So that your tale be well-salted and well-spiced, a fico for evidence! If it hangs not overwell together in places, if there be contradictions, lacunae, or openings for doubt, fling the Verdict of History into the gap, and so strike any questioner into silence.

  So far have matters gone in this connection that who undertakes to set down to-day the history of Cesare Borgia, with intent to do just and honest work, must find it impossible to tell a plain and straightforward tale — to present him not as a villain of melodrama, not a monster, ludicrous, grotesque, impossible, but as human being, a cold, relentless egotist, it is true, using men for his own ends, terrible and even treacherous in his reprisals, swift as a panther and as cruel where his anger was aroused, yet with certain elements of greatness: a splendid soldier, an unrivalled administrator, a man pre-eminently just, if merciless in that same justice.

  To present Cesare Borgia thus in a plain straightforward tale at this time of day, would be to provoke the scorn and derision of those who have made his acquaintance in the pages of that eminent German scholar, Ferdinand Gregorovius, and of some other writers not quite so eminent yet eminent enough to serve serious consideration. Hence has it been necessary to examine at close quarters the findings of these great ones, and to present certain criticisms of those same findings. The author is overwhelmingly conscious of the invidious quality of that task; but he is no less conscious of its inevitability if this tale is to be told at all.

  Whilst the actual sources of historical evidence shall be examined in the course of this narrative, it may be well to examine at this stage the sources of the popular conceptions of the Borgias, since there will be no occasion later to allude to them.

  Without entering here into a dissertation upon the historical romance, it may be said that in proper hands it has been and should continue to be one of the most valued and valuable expressions of the literary art. To render and maintain it so, however, it is necessary that certain well-defined limits should be set upon the licence which its writers are to enjoy; it is necessary that the work should be honest work; that preparation for it should be made by a sound, painstaking study of the period to be represented, to the end that a true impression may first be formed and then conveyed. Thus, considering how much more far-reaching is the novel than any other form of literature, the good results that must wait upon such endeavours are beyond question. The neglect of them — the distortion of character to suit the romancer’s ends, the like distortion of historical facts, the gross anachronisms arising out of a lack of study, have done much to bring the historical romance into disrepute. Many writers frankly make no pretence — leastways none that can be discerned — of aiming at historical precision; others, however, invest their work with a spurious scholarliness, go the length of citing authorities to support the point of view which they have taken, and which they lay before you as the fruit of strenuous lucubrations.

  These are the dangerous ones, and of this type is Victor Hugo’s famous tragedy Lucrezia Borgia, a work to which perhaps more than to any other (not excepting Les Borgias in Crimes Célèbres of Alexandre Dumas) is due the popular conception that prevails to-day of Cesare Borgia’s sister.

  It is questionable whether anything has ever flowed from a distinguished pen in which so many licences have been taken with the history of individuals and of an epoch; in which there is so rich a crop of crude, transpontine absurdities and flagrant, impossible anachronisms. Victor Hugo was a writer of rare gifts, a fertile romancer and a great poet, and it may be unjust to censure him for having taken the fullest advantages of the licences conceded to both. But it would be difficult to censure him too harshly for having — in his Lucrezia Borgia — struck a pose of scholarliness, for having pretended and maintained that his work was honest work founded upon the study of historical evidences. With that piece of charlatanism he deceived the great mass of the unlettered of France and of all Europe into believing that in his tragedy he presented the true Lucrezia Borgia.

  “If you do not believe me,” he declared, “read Tommaso Tommasi, read the Diary of Burchard.”

  Read, then, that Diary, extending over a period of twenty-three years, from 1483 to 1506, of the Master of Ceremonies of the Vatican (which largely contributes the groundwork of the present history), and the one conclusion to which you will be forced is that Victor Hugo himself had never read it, else he would have hesitated to bid you refer to a work which does not support a single line that he has written.

  As for Tommaso Tommasi — oh, the danger of a little learning! Into what quagmires does it not lead those who flaunt it to impress you!

  Tommasi’s place among historians is on precisely the same plane as Alexandre Dumas’s. His Vita di Cesare Borgia is on the same historical level as Les Borgias, much of which it supplied. Like Crimes Célèbres, Tommasi’s book is invested with a certain air of being a narrative of sober fact; but like Crimes Célèbres, it is none the less a work of fiction.

  This Tommaso Tommasi, whose real name was Gregorio Leti — and it is under this that such works of his as are reprinted are published nowadays — was a most prolific author of the seventeenth century, who, having turned Calvinist, vented in his writings a mordacious hatred of the Papacy and of the religion from which he had seceded. His Life of Cesare Borgia was published in 1670. It enjoyed a considerable vogue, was translated into French, and has been the chief source from which many writers of fiction and some writers of “fact” have drawn for subsequent work to carry forward the ceaseless defamation of the Borgias.

  History should be as inexorable as Divine Justice. Before we admit facts, not only should we call for evidence and analyse it when it is forthcoming, but the very sources of such evidence should be examined, that, as far as possible, we may ascertain what degree of credit they deserve. In the study of the history of the Borgias, we repeat, there has been too much acceptance without question, too much taking for granted of matters whose incredibility frequently touches and occasionally oversteps the confines of the impossible.

  One man knew Cesare Borgia better, perhaps, than did any other contemporary, of the many who have left more or less valuable records; for the mind of that man was the acutest of its age, one of the acutest Italy and the world have ever known. That man was Niccolô Macchiavelli, Secretary of State to the Signory of Florence. He owed no benefits to Cesare; he was the ambassador of a power that was ever inimical to the Borgias; so that it is not to be dreamt that his judgement suffered from any bias in Cesare’s favour. Yet he accounted Cesare Borgia — as we shall see — the incarnation of an ideal conqueror and ruler; he took Cesare Borgia as the model for his famous work The Prince, written as a grammar of statecraft for the instruction in the art of government of that weakling Giuliano de’Medici.

  Macchiavelli pronounces upon Cesare Borgia the following verdict:

  “If all the actions of the duke are taken into consideration, it will be seen how great were the foundations he had laid to future power. Upon these I do not think it superfluous to discourse, because I should not know what better precept to lay before a new prince than the example of his actions; and if success did not wait upon what dispositions he had made, that was through no fault of his own, but the result of an extraordinary and extreme malignity of fortune.”

  In its proper place shall be considered what else Macchiavelli had to say of Ces
are Borgia and what to report of events that he witnessed connected with Cesare Borgia’s career.

  Meanwhile, the above summary of Macchiavelli’s judgement is put forward as a justification for the writing of this book, which has for scope to present to you the Cesare Borgia who served as the model for The Prince.

  Before doing so, however, there is the rise of the House of Borgia to be traced, and in the first two of the four books into which this history will be divided it is Alexander VI, rather than his son, who will hold the centre of the stage.

  If the author has a mercy to crave of his critics, it is that they will not impute it to him that he has set out with the express aim of “whitewashing” — as the term goes — the family of Borgia. To whitewash is to overlay, to mask the original fabric under a superadded surface. Too much superadding has there been here already. By your leave, all shall be stripped away. The grime shall be removed and the foulness of inference, of surmise, of deliberate and cold-blooded malice, with which centuries of scribblers, idle, fantastic, sensational, or venal, have coated the substance of known facts.

  But the grime shall be preserved and analysed side by side with the actual substance, that you may judge if out of zeal to remove the former any of the latter shall have been included in the scraping.

  The author expresses his indebtedness to the following works which, amongst others, have been studied for the purposes of the present history:

  Alvisi, Odoardo, Cesare Borgia, Duca di Romagna. Imola, 1878.

  Auton, Jean d’, Chroniques de Louis XII (Soc. de l’Hist. de France).

  Paris, 1889.

  Baldi, Bernardino, Della Vita e Fatti di Guidobaldo. Milano, 1821.

  Barthélemy, Charles, Erreurs et Mensonges Historiques. Paris, 1873.

  Bernardi, Andrea, Cronache Forlivese, 1476-1517. Bologna, 1897.

  Bonnaffé, Edmond, Inventaire de la Duchesse de Valentinois, Paris,

  1878.

  Bonoli, Paolo, Istorie della Città di Forli. Forli, 1661.

  Bourdeilles, Pierre, Vie des Hommes Illustres. Leyde, 1666.

  Brown, Rawdon, Ragguagli Sulla Vita e sulle Opere di Marino Sanuto.

  Venezia, 1837.

  Buonaccorsi, Biagio, Diario. Firenze, 1568.

  Burchard, Joannes, Diarium, sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii.

  (Edited by L. Thuasne.) Paris, 1885.

  Burckhardt, Jacob, Der Cultur der Renaissance in Italien. Basel, 1860.

  Castiglione, Baldassare, Il Cortigiano. Firenze, 1885.

  Chapelles, Grillon des, Esquisses Biographiques. Paris, 1862.

  Cerri, Domenico, Borgia. Tonino, 1857.

  Clementini, Cesare, Raccolto Istorico delle Fondatione di Rimino.

  Rimini, 1617.

  Corio, Bernardino, Storia di Milano. Milano, 1885.

  Corvo, Baron, Chronicles of the House of Borgia. London, 1901.

  Espinois, Henri de l’, Le Pape Alexandre VI (in the Revue des Questions

  Historiques, Vol. XXIX). Paris, 1881.

  Giovio, Paolo, La Vita di Dicenove Uomini Illustri. Venetia, 1561.

  Giovio, Paolo, Delle Istorie del Suo Tempo. Venetia, 1608.

  Giustiniani, Antonio, Dispacci, 1502-1505. (Edited by Pasquale Villari.)

  Firenze, 1876.

  Granata, F., Storia Civile di Capua. 1752.

  Gregorovius, Ferdinand, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter.

  Stuttgart, 1889.

  Gregorovius, Ferdinand, Lacrezia Borgia (Italian translation). Firenze,

  1855.

  Guicciardini, Francesco, Istoria d’Italia. Milan, 1803.

  Guingené, P. L., Histoire Littéraire d’Italie. Milano, 1820.

  Infessura, Stefano, Diarum Rerum Romanum. (Edited by 0. Tommassini.)

  Roma, 1887.

  Leonetti, A., Papa Alessandro VI. Bologna, 1880.

  Leti, Gregorio (“Tommaso Tommasi”), Vita di Cesare Borgia, Milano, 1851.

  Lucaire, Achille, Alain le Grand, Sire d’Albret. Paris, 1877.

  Macchiavelli, Niccolô, Il Principe. Torino, 1853.

  Macchiavelli, Niccolô, Le Istorie Fiorentine. Firenze, 1848.

  Macchiavelli, Niccolô, Opere Minori. Firenze, 1852.

  Matarazzo, Francesco, Cronaca della Città di Perugia, 1492-1503.

  (Edited by F. Bonaini and F. Polidori.) In Archivio Storico

  Italiano, Firenze, 1851.

  Panvinio, Onofrio, Le Vite dei Pontefici. Venezia, 1730.

  Pascale, Aq., Racconto del Sacco di Capova. Napoli, 1632.

  Righi, B., Annali di Faenza. Faenza, 1841.

  Sanazzaro, Opere. Padua, 1723.

  Sanuto Marino, Diarii, Vols. I to V. (Edited by F. Stefani.) Venice,

  1879.

  Tartt, W. M., Pandolfo Collenuccio, Memoirs connected with his life.

  1868.

  “Tommaso Tommasi” (Gregorio Leti), Vita di Cesare Borgia. 1789.

  Varchi, Benedetto, Storia Fiorentina. Florence, 1858.

  Visari, Gustavo, Vita degli Artefici.

  Villari, Pasquale, La Storia di Girolamo Savonarola, etc. Florence,

  1861.

  Villari, Pasquale, Niccolò Machiavelli e I suoi Tempi. Milano, 1895.

  Yriarte, Charles, La Vie de César Borgia. Paris, 1889.

  Yriarte, Charles, Autour des Borgia. Paris, 1891.

  Zurita, Geronimo, Historia del Rey Don Hernando el Catolico (in Anales).

  Çaragoça, 1610.

  BOOK I. THE HOUSE OF THE BULL

  “Borgia stirps: BOS: atque Ceres transcendit Olympo, Cantabat nomen saecula cuncta suum.”

  MICHELE FERNO

  CHAPTER I. THE RISE OF THE HOUSE OF BORGIA

  Although the House of Borgia, which gave to the Church of Rome two popes and at least one saint,(1) is to be traced back to the eleventh century, claiming as it does to have its source in the Kings of Aragon, we shall take up its history for our purposes with the birth at the city of Xativa, in the kingdom of Valencia, on December 30, 1378, of Alonso de Borja, the son of Don Juan Domingo de Borja and his wife Doña Francisca.

  (1 St. Francisco Borgia, S.J. — great-grandson of Pope Alexander VI, born at Gandia, in Spain, in 1510.)

  To this Don Alonso de Borja is due the rise of his family to its stupendous eminence. An able, upright, vigorous-minded man, he became a Professor and Doctor of Jurisprudence at the University of Lerida, and afterwards served Alfonso I of Aragon, King of Naples and the Two Sicilies, in the capacity of secretary. This office he filled with the distinction that was to be expected from one so peculiarly fitted for it by the character of the studies he had pursued.

  He was made Bishop of Valencia, created Cardinal in 1444, and finally — in 1455 — ascended the throne of St. Peter as Calixtus III, an old man, enfeebled in body, but with his extraordinary vigour of mind all unimpaired.

  Calixtus proved himself as much a nepotist as many another Pope before and since. This needs not to be dilated upon here; suffice it that in February of 1456 he gave the scarlet hat of Cardinal-Deacon of San Niccoló, in Carcere Tulliano, to his nephew Don Roderigo de Lanzol y Borja.

  Born in 1431 at Xativa, the son of Juana de Borja (sister of Calixtus) and her husband Don Jofrè de Lanzol, Roderigo was in his twenty-fifth year at the time of his being raised to the purple, and in the following year he was further created Vice-Chancellor of Holy Church with an annual stipend of eight thousand florins. Like his uncle he had studied jurisprudence — at the University of Bologna — and mentally and physically he was extraordinarily endowed.

  From the pen-portraits left of him by Gasparino of Verona, and Girolamo Porzio, we know him for a tall, handsome man with black eyes and full lips, elegant, courtly, joyous, and choicely eloquent, of such health and vigour and endurance that he was insensible to any fatigue. Giasone Maino of Milan refers to his “elegant appearance, serene brow, royal glance, a countenance that at once expresses generosity and majesty, and the genial and heroic air with which his whole personality is invested.” To a similar descripti
on of him Gasparino adds that “all women upon whom he so much as casts his eyes he moves to love him; attracting them as the lodestone attracts iron;” which is, it must be admitted, a most undesirable reputation in a churchman.

  A modern historian(1) who uses little restraint when writing of Roderigo Borgia says of him that “he was a man of neither much energy nor determined will,” and further that “the firmness and energy wanting to his character were, however, often replaced by the constancy of his evil passions, by which he was almost blinded.” How the constancy of evil passions can replace firmness and energy as factors of worldly success is not readily discernible, particularly if their possessor is blinded by them. The historical worth of the stricture may safely be left to be measured by its logical value. For the rest, to say that Roderigo Borgia was wanting in energy and in will is to say something to which his whole career gives the loud and derisive lie, as will — to some extent at least — be seen in the course of this work.

  (1 Pasquale Villari in his Machiavelli i suoi Tempi)

  His honours as Cardinal-Deacon and Vice-Chancellor of the Holy See he owed to his uncle; but that he maintained and constantly improved his position — and he a foreigner, be it remembered — under the reigns of the four succeeding Popes — Pius II, Paul II, Sixtus IV, and Innocent VIII — until finally, six-and-twenty years after the death of Calixtus III, he ascended, himself, the Papal Throne, can be due only to the unconquerable energy and stupendous talents which have placed him where he stands in history — one of the greatest forces, for good or ill, that ever occupied St. Peter’s Chair.