Durant W. The Renaissance. A History of Civilization in Italy from 1304-1576 A.D

On the afternoon of August 5, 1503, Alexander, Caesar, and some

others dined in the open air at the villa of Cardinal Adriano da

Corneto, not far from the Vatican. All remained in the gardens till

midnight, for the heat indoors was exhausting. On the 11th the

Cardinal was attacked by a severe fever, which lasted three days and

then subsided. On the 12th both the Pope and his son were bedded

with fever and vomiting. Rome, as usual, talked of poison; Caesar,

said gossip, had ordered the poisoning of the Cardinal to secure his

fortune; by mistake the poisoned food had been eaten by nearly all the

guests. Historians now agree with the physicians who treated the Pope,

that the cause was malarial infection, invited by prolonged exposure

to the night air of midsummer Rome. `0516109 In that same month

malarial fever laid low half the household of the Pope, and many of

these cases proved fatal; `0516110 in Rome there were hundreds of

deaths from the same cause in that season.

Alexander lingered for thirteen days between life and death,

occasionally recovering to the extent of resuming the conferences of

diplomacy; on August 13 he played cards. The doctors bled him

repeatedly, probably once too much, depleting his natural strength. He

died on August 18. Soon afterward the body became black and fetid,

lending color to hasty rumors of poison. Carpenters and porters,

"joking and blaspheming," says Burchard, had trouble forcing the

swollen corpse into the coffin designed for it. `0516111 Gossip

added that a little devil had been seen, at the moment of death,

carrying Alexander's soul to hell. `0516112

The Romans rejoiced at the passing of the Spanish Pope. Riots

broke out, the "Catalans" were chased from the city or were killed

in their tracks; their houses were plundered by the mob; one hundred

dwellings were burned to the ground. The armed troops of the Colonna

and the Orsini entered the city on August 22 and 23, over the protests

of the college of cardinals. Said Guicciardini, the patriotic

Florentine:

-

The whole city of Rome ran together with incredible alacrity, and

crowded about the corpse in St. Peter's Church, and were not able to

satisfy their eyes with the sight of a dead serpent, who, with his

immoderate ambition and detestable treachery, with manifold

instances of horrid cruelty and monstrous lust, and exposing to sale

all things without distinction, both sacred and profane, had

intoxicated the whole world. `0516113

-

Machiavelli agreed with Guicciardini: Alexander

-

did nothing but deceive, and thought of nothing else during the

whole of his life; nor did any man vow with stronger oaths to

observe promises which he afterwards broke. Nevertheless he

succeeded in everything, for he was well acquainted with this part

of the world. `0516114

-

These condemnations were based on two assumptions: that the tales

told of Alexander in Rome were true, and that Alexander was

unjustified in the methods that he used to reclaim the Papal States.

Catholic historians, while defending Alexander's right to restore

the temporal power of the papacy, generally join in condemning

Alexander's methods and morals. Says the honest Pastor:

-

He was universally described as a monster, and every sort of foul

crime was attributed to him. Modern critical research has in many

points judged him more fairly and rejected some of the worst

accusations made against him. But even though we must beware of

accepting without examination all the tales told of Alexander by his

contemporaries... and though the bitter wit of the Romans found its

favorite exercises in tearing him to pieces without mercy, and

attributing to him in popular pasquinades and scholarly epigrams a

life of incredible foulness, still so much against him has been

clearly proved that we are forced to reject the modern attempts at

whitewashing him as an unworthy tampering with truth.... From the

Catholic point of view it is impossible to blame Alexander too

severely. `0516115

-

Protestant historians have sometimes shown a generous lenience to

Alexander. William Roscoe, in his classic Life and Pontificate of Leo

X (1827) was among the first to say a good word for the Borgia Pope:

-

Whatever were his crimes, there can be no doubt that they have

been highly overcharged. That he was devoted to the aggrandizement

of his family, and that he employed the authority of his elevated

station to establish a permanent dominion in Italy in the person of

his son, cannot be doubted; but when almost all the sovereigns of

Europe were attempting to gratify their ambition by means equally

criminal, it seems unjust to brand the character of Alexander with any

peculiar and extraordinary share of infamy in this respect. While

Louis of France and Ferdinand of Spain conspired together to seize

upon and divide the Kingdom of Naples, by an example of treachery that

can never be sufficiently execrated, Alexander might surely think

himself justified in suppressing the turbulent barons, who had for

ages rent the dominions of the Church with intestine wars, and in

subjugating the petty sovereigns of the Romagna, over whom he had an

acknowledged supremacy, and who had in general acquired their

dominions by means as unjustifiable as those which he adopted

against them. With respect to the accusation so generally believed, of

a criminal intercourse between him and his own daughter... it might

not be difficult to show its improbability. In the second place the

vices of Alexander were accompanied, though not compensated, by many

great qualities, which in the consideration of his character ought not

to be passed over in silence.... Even by his severest adversaries he

is allowed to have been a man of elevated genius, of a wonderful

memory, eloquent, vigilant, and dexterous in the management of all his

concerns." `0516116

-

Bishop Creighton summarized Alexander's character and achievements

in general agreement with Roscoe's judgment, and far more mercifully

than Pastor. `0516117 A later judgment is more favorable still- by the

Protestant scholar Richard Garnett in The Cambridge Modern History:

-

Alexander's character has undoubtedly gained by the scrutiny of

modern historians. It was but natural that one accused of so many

crimes, and unquestionably the cause of many scandals, should

alternately appear as a tyrant and a voluptuary. Neither description

suits him. The groundwork of his character was extreme exuberance of

nature. The Venetian ambassador calls him a carnal man, not implying

anything morally derogatory, but meaning a man of sanguine

temperament, unable to control his passions and emotions. This

perplexed the cool unimpassioned Italians of the diplomatic type

then prevalent among rulers and statesmen, and their apprehensions

have unduly prejudiced Alexander, who in truth was not less but more

human than most princes of his time. This excessive "carnality"

wrought in him for good and ill. Unrestrained by moral scruples, or by

any spiritual conception of religion, he was betrayed by it into gross

sensuality of one kind, though in other respects he was temperate

and abstemious. In the more respectable guise of family affection it

led him to outrage every principle of justice, though even here he

only performed a necessary work which could not, as one of his

agents said, have been accomplished by "holy water." On the other hand

his geniality and joyousness preserved him from tyranny in the

ordinary sense of the term.... As a ruler, careful of the material

weal of his people, he ranks among the best of his age; as a practical

statesman he was the equal of any contemporary. But his insight was

impaired by his lack of political morality; he had nothing of the

higher wisdom which comprehends the characteristics and foresees the

drift of an epoch, and he did not know what a principle was. `0516118

-

Those of us who share Alexander's sensitivity to the charms and

graces of woman cannot find it in their hearts to throw stones at

him for his armours. His prepapal deviations were no more scandalous

than those of Aeneas Sylvius, who fares so well with the historians,

or of Julius II, whom time has graciously forgiven. It is not recorded

that these two Popes took such care of their mistresses and their

children as Alexander did of his. Indeed there was something

familial and domestic about Alexander that would have made him a

relatively respectable man if the laws of the Church, as well as the

customs of Renaissance Italy and Protestant Germany and England, had

allowed the marriage of the clergy; his sin was not against nature but

against a rule of celibacy soon to be rejected by half of Christendom.

We cannot say that his relation with Giulia Farnese was carnal; so far

as we know, neither Vanozza, nor Lucrezia, nor Giulia's husband

expressed any objection to it; perhaps it was the simple delight of

a normal man in the lure and vivacity of a beautiful woman.

Our judgment of Alexander's politics must distinguish between his

ends and his means. His purposes were entirely legitimate- to

recover the "Patrimony of Peter" (essentially the ancient Latium) from

disorderly feudal barons, and to regain from usurping despots the

traditional States of the Church. The methods used by Alexander and

Caesar in realizing these aims were those used by all other states

then and now- war, diplomacy, deceit, treachery, violation of

treaties, and desertion of allies. Alexander's abandonment of the Holy

League, his purchase of French soldiers and support at the price of

surrendering Milan to France, were major crimes against Italy. And

those secular means that states use, and consider indispensable, in

the lawless jungle of international strife, offend us when employed by

a pope pledged to the principles of Christ. Whatever danger the Church

ran of becoming subject to some domineering government- as to France

at Avignon- if she lost her own territories, it would have been better

for her to sacrifice all temporal power, and be as poor again as the

Galilean fishermen, than to adopt the ways of the world to achieve her

political ends. By adopting them, and financing them, she gained a

state and lost a third of Christendom.

-

Caesar Borgia, slowly recovering from the same illness that had

killed the Pope, found himself enmeshed in a dozen unanticipated

perils. Who could have foreseen that he and his father would be

incapacitated at the same time? While the doctors bled him the Colonna

and the Orsini quickly recovered the castles that he had taken from

them; the deposed lords of the Romagna, with the encouragement of

Venice, began to reclaim their principalities; and the Roman mob,

already out of hand, might at any moment, now that Alexander was dead,

plunder the Vatican and seize the funds upon which Caesar depended for

the payment of his troops. He sent some armed men to the Vatican; they

compelled Cardinal Casanuova, at swords' points, to give up the

treasury; so Caesar repeated Caesar after fifteen centuries. They

brought back to him 100,000 ducats in gold, and 300,000 ducats'

worth of plate and jewelry. At the same time he sent galleys and

troops to prevent his strongest enemy, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere,

from reaching Rome. He felt that unless he could persuade the conclave

to elect a pope favorable to him, he was lost.

The cardinals insisted that the troops of Caesar, the Orsini, and

the Colonna should leave Rome before an unintimidated election could

be held. All three groups yielded. Caesar retired with his men to

Civita Castellana, while Cardinal Giuliano entered Rome and led, in

the conclave, the forces hostile to all Borgias. On September 22,

1503, the rival factions in the College chose Cardinal Francesco

Piccolomini as a compromise pope. He took the name Pius III, in

honor of his uncle Aeneas Sylvius. He was a man of learning and

integrity, though he was also the father of a large family. `0516119

He was sixty-four, and suffered from an abscess in his leg. He was

friendly to Caesar, and allowed him to return to Rome. But on

October 18 Pius III died.

Caesar saw that he could no longer prevent the election of

Cardinal della Rovere, who was clearly the ablest man in the

College. In a private interview with Giuliano, Caesar effected an

apparent reconciliation: he promised Giuliano the support of the

Spanish cardinals (who were loyal to Caesar), and Giuliano promised,

if elected, to confirm him as Duke of the Romagna and commander of the

papal troops. Some other cardinals Giuliano bought with simple

bribery. `0516120 Giuliano della Rovere was chosen pope (October 31,

1503), and took the name Julius II, as if to say that he too would

be a Caesar, and better Alexander. His coronation was postponed till

November 26 because the astrologers predicted for that day a

propitious conjunction of stars.

Venice did not wait for a lucky star; it seized Rimini, besieged

Faenza, and gave every sign of taking over as much of the Romagna as

possible before the Church could organize her forces. Julius bade

Caesar go to Imola and recruit a new army for the protection of the

Papal States. Caesar agreed, and proceeded to Ostia with a view to

sailing to Pisa. At Ostia a message from the Pope commanded him to

surrender his control of the Romagna fortresses. In a crucial error

suggesting that sickness had impaired his judgment, Caesar refused,

though it should have been obvious that he was now dealing with a

man whose will was at least as strong as his own. Julius ordered him

to return to Rome; Caesar obeyed, and was subjected to house arrest.

There Guidobaldo, who now not only was restored to Urbino but was

the newly appointed commander of the papal armies, came to see the

fallen Borgia. Caesar humbled himself before the man whom he had

deposed and despoiled, gave him the watchwords of the fortresses,

returned to him some precious books and tapestries left from the

Urbino pillage, and begged his intercession with Julius. Cesena and

Forli refused to honor the watchwords until Caesar was set at liberty;

Julius refused to release him until Caesar persuaded the Romagna

castles to yield to the Pope. Lucrezia implored her husband to help

her brother; Alfonso (still only heir, not occupant, of the ducal

throne) did nothing. She appealed to Isabella d'Este; Isabella did

nothing; probably she and Alfonso knew that Julius was immovable.

Caesar finally gave the word of surrender to his loyal supporters

in the Romagna; the Pope freed him, and he fled to Naples (April

19, 1504).

There he was welcomed by Gonzalo de Cordoba, who gave him a

safe-conduct. His courage returning sooner than his good sense, he

organized a small force, and was preparing to sail with it to Piombino

(near Leghorn) when he was arrested by Gonzalo on orders from

Ferdinand of Spain; the "Catholic King" had been urged to the action

by Julius, who did not propose to have Caesar start a civil war. In

August Caesar was transported to Spain, and fretted in prison there

for two years. Lucrezia again sought to have him freed, but in vain.

His deserted wife pled for him with her brother Jean d'Albret, King of

Navarre; a plan of escape was devised; and in November, 1506, Caesar

was again a free man, at the court of Navarre. He soon found a

chance to repay d'Albret. The Count of Lerin, a vassal of the King,

rebelled; Caesar led part of Jean's army against the Count's

fortress at Viana; the Count made a sortie, which Caesar repulsed;

Caesar pursued the defeated too recklessly; the Count, reinforced,

turned upon him, Caesar's few troops fled; Caesar, with only one

companion, stood his ground, and fought till he was cut down and

killed (March 12, 1507). He was thirty-one years old.

It was an honorable end to a questionable life. There are many

things in Caesar Borgia that we cannot stomach: his insolent pride,

his neglect of his faithful wife, his treatment of women as mere

instruments of passing pleasure, his occasional cruelty to his

enemies- as when he condemned to death not only Giullo Varano, lord of

Camerino, but Giulio's two sons, and apparently ordered the death of

the two Manfredi; severities that compare shamefully with the calm

mercies of the man whose name he bore. Usually he acted on the

principle that the achievement of his purpose justified any means.

He found himself surrounded with lies, and managed to lie better

than the rest until Julius lied to him. He was almost certainly

innocent of his brother Giovanni's death; he was probably the man

who set the thugs upon the Duke of Bisceglie. He lacked- perhaps

through illness- the strength to face his own misfortunes with courage

and dignity. Only his death brought a gleam of nobility into his life.

But even he had virtues. He must have had extraordinary ability to

rise so rapidly, to learn so readily the arts of leadership,

negotiation, and war. Given the difficult task of restoring, with only

a small force at his command, the papal power in the Papal States,

he accomplished it with surprising rapidity of movement, skill of

strategy, and economy of means. Empowered to govern as well as to

conquer, he gave the Romagna the fairest rule and most prosperous

peace that it had enjoyed in centuries. Ordered to clear the

Campagna of rebellious and troublesome vassals, he did it with a

celerity that Julius Caesar himself could hardly have surpassed.

With such achievements mounting to his head, he may well have played

with the dream that Petrarch and Machiavelli entertained: to give

Italy, if necessary by conquest, the unity that would enable her to

stand against the centralized strength of France or Spain. *05043

But his victories, his methods, his power, his dark secrecy, his swift

incalculable attacks, made him the terror instead of the liberator

of Italy. The faults of his character ruined the accomplishments of

his mind. It was his basic tragedy that he had never learned to love.

-

Except, again, Lucrezia. What a contrast she offered to her fallen

brother in the modesty and prosperity of her final years! She who in

Rome had been the subject and victim of every scandalmonger was

loved by the people of Ferrara as a model of feminine virtue. `0516121

She tried there to forget all the horrors and tribulations of her

past; she recaptured, with due restraint, the joyousness of her youth,

and added to it a generous interest in the needs of others. Ariosto,

Tebaldeo, Bembo, Tito and Ercole Strozzi praised her profitably in

their verse; they called her pulcherrima virgo, "most beautiful

maiden," and no one blinked an eye. Perhaps Bembo tried to play

Abelard to her Heloise, and Lucrezia now became something of a

linguist, speaking Spanish, Italian, French, and reading a "little

Latin and less Greek." We are told that she wrote poetry in all

these tongues. `0516122 Aldus Manutius dedicated to her his edition of

the Strozzi poems, and implied, in the preface, that she had offered

to underwrite his great printing enterprise. `0516123

Amid all these learned concerns she found time to bear to her

third husband four sons and a daughter. Alfonso was well pleased

with her in his uneffusive way. In 1506, having occasion to leave

Ferrara, he appointed her his regent; and she fulfilled her duties

with such good judgment that the Ferrarese were inclined to pardon

Alexander for having once left her in charge of the Vatican.

In the last years of her brief life she devoted herself to the

education of her children, and to works of charity and mercy; she

became a pious Franciscan tertiary. On June 14, 1519, she was

delivered of her seventh child, but it was stillborn. She never rose

from that bed of pain. On June 24, aged thirty-nine, Lucrezia

Borgia, more sinned against than sinning, passed away.

CHAPTER XVII: Julius II: 1503-13

I. THE WARRIOR

-

IF we place before us Raphael's searching and profound portrait of

Julius II, we shall see at once that Giuliano della Rovere was one

of the strongest personalities that ever reached the papal chair. A

massive head bent with exhaustion and tardy humility, a wide high

brow, a large pugnacious nose, grave, deep-set, penetrating eyes, lips

tight with resolution, hands heavy with the rings of authority, face

somber with the disillusionments of power: this is the man who for a

decade kept Italy in war and turmoil, freed it from foreign armies,

tore down the old St. Peter's, brought Bramante and a hundred other

artists to Rome, discovered, developed, and directed Michelangelo

and Raphael, and through them gave to the world a new St. Peter's

and the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and the stanze of the Vatican.

Voila un homme! - here is a man.

His violent temper presumably characterized him from his first

breath. Born near Savona (1443) a nephew of Sixtus IV, he reached

the cardinalate at twenty-seven, and fumed and fretted in it for

thirty-three years before being promoted to what had long seemed to

him his manifest due. He paid no more regard to his vow of celibacy

than most of his colleagues; `05171 his master of ceremonies at the

Vatican later reported that Pope Julius would not allow his foot to be

kissed because it was disfigured ex morbo gallico - with the French

disease. `05172 He had three illegitimate daughters, `05173 but he was

too busy fighting Alexander to find time for the unconcealed

parental fondness that in Alexander so offended the cherished

hypocrisies of mankind. He disliked Alexander as a Spanish intruder,

denied his fitness for the papacy, called him a swindler and a

usurper, `05174 and did all he could to unseat him, even to inviting

France to invade Italy.

He seemed made as a foil and contrast to Alexander. The Borgia

Pope was jovial, sanguine, good-natured (if we except a possible

poisoning or two); Julius was stern, Jovian, passionate, impatient,

readily moved to anger, passing from one fight to another, never

really happy except at war. Alexander waged war by proxy, Julius in

person; the sexagenarian Pope became a soldier, more at ease in

military garb than in pontifical robes, loving camps and besieging

towns, having guns pointed and assaults delivered under his commanding

eyes. Alexander could play, but Julius moved from one enterprise to

another, never resting. Alexander could be a diplomat; Julius found it

extremely difficult, for he liked to tell people what he thought of

them; "often his language overstepped all bounds in its rudeness and

violence," and "this fault increased perceptibly as he grew

older." `05175 His courage, like his language, knew no limits;

stricken with illness time and again in his campaigns, he would

confound his enemies by recovering and leaping upon them once more.

Like Alexander, he had had to buy a few cardinals to ease his way to

the papacy, but he denounced the practice in a bull of 1505. If in

this matter he did not reform with inconvenient precipitation, he

rejected nepotism almost completely, and rarely appointed relatives to

office. In selling church benefices and promotions, however, he

followed Alexander's example, and his grants of indulgences shared

Durant W. The Renaissance. A History of Civilization in Italy from 1304-1576 A.D

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.