Third Draft

Rodrigo Borgia was both a famous and infamous Italian Renaissance Pope who ruled from 1492 up until his death in 1503. My main purpose is to evaluate the papacy of Rodrigo Borgia. In order to do this it is necessary to analyse the specific sources and from those sources extract content relating to Rodrigo’s life, his rise to the Papacy, actions made during his reign and most significantly, the varying views of his Papacy.

The ideal way to evaluate Rodrigo morally is by addressing the main claims/accusations made against him, while noting the positives and negative contributions he made. There also needs to be judgement, both in the context of his time and up until more modern standards to truly establish answers.

Throughout history Rodrigo has adopted a controversial and corrupt reputation/status. It can be argued that this image was generated by the many claims made against him during his Papacy and reign, claims such as the election to the Papacy, incest claims from Giovanni Sforza, claims of murder and so on.                                                                                                                                                                                                                While inheriting a very vilified and controversial status Rodrigo also contributed in unique and subtle ways to society. Marion Johnson in her book “The Borgia’s”, which forms a narrative on Alexander’s life, agrees with his achievements through the course of his Papacy

 

“But Alexander also did good work knowingly for the papacy and for Rome, since he was fully conscious of his duties as a Renaissance patron”.

 

These contributions include Patronage of the arts; he saved Rome from the French, added strength/made alliances to neighbouring Papal States and brought a new liveliness to Rome.

 

Rodrigo was a young Spaniard who was destined to have a life in the church. Early on he studied canon law at the University of Bologna. In 1456, Rodrigo became a Cardinal at the young age of 25 and in the following year he attained the post of vice-chancellorship of the Holy See from his uncle (Calixtus III).

Over the years Rodrigo’s scandalous life included that of mistresses, most notably Giulia Farnese. This was a claim that was no doubt true and it was the first of many scandals that plagued Rodrigo’s life and reputation. He was seen as a character full of ‘sexual appetite’. Marion Johnson in her book “The Borgia’s”, which focuses on a narrative of Alexander’s life, mentions that

 

“Rodrigo progressed from paternal affection to a lover’s passion. Giulia, most scandalously for one so young, became his mistress and the love of his late years”.

 

Tuchman acknowledges what effect this had on Rodrigo and Mallett also acknowledges this.

 

“Made the subject of lewd jokes, it helped tarnish Borgia’s reputation”.

 

 

Throughout his time as Vice-Chancellor, Rodrigo garnered a reputation and an accumulation of wealth and eventually developed an ambition for the position of Pope.

In July 1492 Innocent VIII died. At this time Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia was very much in the public eye and had attracted some interest in Rome.

The Cardinals went into the Vatican on the 6^th of August to elect Innocent’s successor. Michael Mallett states

 

“This set the scene for one of the most dramatic and one of the most controversial of all Papal elections”.

 

In this election Rodrigo seemed to be against two top contenders, Cardinals della Rovere and Ascanio Sforza. Guiliano della Rovere had been Rodrigo’s bitter rival for quite some time and was a pro-French candidate.

The whole process lasted four days with four scrutinies. During this time Ascanio realized his chances were becoming slim and he switched his vote to Rodrigo. This gave Rodrigo the required two thirds majority vote.  On the morning of the 11^th of August, 1492, Rodrigo Borgia was announced as the new Pope and later became known as Alexander VI.

This is one of the main controversies in Rodrigo’s career. Many accused him of simply buying the cardinals votes with offers of both wealth and positions in various Church offices.

Barbara Tuchman, who wrote “The March of Folly”, argues that the election was corrupt.

 

“He simply bought the Papacy outright over his two chief rivals, Cardinal della Rovere and Ascanio Sforza. The latter, who preferred coin to promises, was brought round by four mule-loads of bullion that were dispatched from Rodrigo’s palace.”

 

This is also depicted in the television series “The Borgia’s”. Tuchman’s account/quote concerning mule loads shows exaggeration and an attempt for stylising story.

 

However, there was no solid conclusive evidence to suggest this and because of that fact the allegation is considered inconclusive. By contrast Michael Mallett writes that Rodrigo led the votes from the beginning and had no need to buy out his rivals

 

“… the full details of the first three scrutinies of this conclave had finally been found and published. The implications of these scrutiny lists have been very fully discussed by several historians but have never been fully assimilated into the stream of popular Borgia historiography. These lists reveal that Rodrigo Borgia was one of the leading candidate’s from the first scrutiny onwards” (referring to the election)

 

Mallett also strongly discredits the allegation of simony, due to the lack of appropriate evidence. He makes reference to opposing Cardinals and how these Cardinals had no need for Rodrigo’s offers as they were wealthy figures at the time and that there was no evidence to sustain this claim, their vote was purely their choice, according to Mallett.

Tuchman and Mallett have complete opposing views to what actually occurred. Mallett’s answer is more reliable due to the evidence and researched points he presents, while Tuchman’s evident use of exaggeration and adding appeal to her work proves less useful in actual representation of what occurred.

 

For the first few months in office he focused on a more strict administration of orderly government and the problems current throughout Rome. However, there was an inevitable pull from his family and eventually his offspring were soon established in different positions throughout the Italian aristocracy. Cesare, Rodrigo’s eldest son, became a Cardinal and Archbishop of Valencia; Giovanni (Juan) received the Spanish Dukedom of Gandia.

 

Rodrigo at this time sought further allies. He had his daughter, Lucrezia, marry Giovanni Sforza, this would strengthen ties and give Rodrigo political advantages, but would also prove to be controversial later.

 

During this time the French devised plans for an invasion to conquer Naples. A march through the Papal States was declared and led by Charles VIII. Charles aimed to claim the throne of Naples.  He moved on unresisted and reached Rome.
Alexander held firm against demands and ultimately Charles and his army left to continue on to Naples. Rome was free of the French, for now. This shows Alexander’s determination to keep Rome and its people safe; it presents a positive highlight/event during his Papacy. Hibbert writes

 

“This was a diplomatic triumph for Alexander VI. A month earlier he had been under siege, his city in an uproar, his hold on power tenuous at best; now he had fully re-established his authority. The terms of the agreement were formally read out and written up”.

 

With this threat King Alfonso II fled from Naples to Sicily. The French took Naples with little resistance.

 

Charles however, was unable to obtain Neapolitan support and so the French returned to Rome aggressively. Alexander escaped northwards with many Cardinals. Pursuit became futile and Charles had no choice but to head back home, their campaign had failed.

 

Alexander, in the following months worked on Italian unity and power base to prevent another danger like this from arising.

A campaign was then established against the Orsini, after they sided with the French earlier and betrayed Alexander. Juan commanded the papal army who claimed a number of Orsini castles, but the Orsini clan held out and a deal was eventually made between the two sides. The Orsini would always maintain a rivalry with the Borgia’s over the years to come.

 

On the 14^th of June Juan, Duke of Gandia, was found stabbed to death in the Tiber. Alexander was pained by grief. There were a long list of suspects including the Orsini, Giovanni Sforza, the Duke of Urbino and even Cesare was eventually listed.

While it may be questioned why Cesare was a suspect, Hibbert identifies potential motives

 

“Juan’s failure at Bracciano and his seduction of Sancia, Cesare’s mistress, had infuriated Cesare, fuelling his dislike of Juan as the obvious favourite (of Rodrigo’s sons), though unworthy and conceited second son”.

 

No one ended up being identified as the killer. According to Tuchman Cesare has since been absolved of the murder, but debate on the topic still lingers. This is a perfect example of the deceit and suspicion that followed the Borgia’s. Its shows suspicion both on the eyes of the observers and the eyes of each Borgia on one another.

 

It was in this year that Alexander annulled the marriage of his daughter to Giovanni Sforza in order for her to marry Alfonso the Neapolitan heir (He had interest in creating ties with Naples). Sforza had been married to Lucrezia, to strengthen ties with Milan. 

 

There were claims made against Sforza that he was impotent after the decision to annul the marriage. Giovanni, outraged, denied the charge of 'non-consummation' and accused the Pope of Incest. He made allegations that the family (Rodrigo, Cesare, Juan) had intimate relations with Lucrezia. Sforza’ claim of incest is also considered to be one of the most provocative of the list of accusations that accumulated against the Borgia’s over time.

Christopher Hibbert acknowledges how these claims seemed to spread and stick within society from an angered and mistreated Sforza

 

“The rumours of incest, a sin as offensive then as it is now, spread like wildfire through Rome and all of Italy. Born out of Giovanni’s desire for revenge on the family who were taunting him so unfairly, the story stuck”

 

These claims were considered to be simply fabricated by Sforza who wanted to get back at the Borgia’s for the humiliation he received. They were dismissed as there was no evidence to hint at this, but these rumours carried on and spread as many of the Borgia enemies continued adding to this negative view of them.

 

“The accusations on both sides seem to have been rooted in a particularly nasty divorce rather than in reality but the incest charges were picked up by the Borgia’s’ enemies and made to stick”.

 

It’s easily safe to say these incest claims are fabricated as there’s no possible evidence, it’s a story made to stain Rodrigo’s reputation.

 

Another character of interest at this time was Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican Friar who preached in Florence. Savonarola had great influence to those who listened; he often attacked the Borgia’s in his speeches and praised the French.

He was executed on Alexander’s orders, after his public speeches became too much.  This is an example of the accusations made against the Borgia’s of murder/poison to suppress their enemies. It’s generally believed this did occur whenever a threat arose.

Micheletto Corella was a Borgia bodyguard who had a close friendship with Cesare. It’s generally believed Cesare hired him to assassinate certain opposition and it’s also believed that Cesare/Juan also played a part in certain murders

 

“By his early twenties, Cesare Borgia was considered to be a serial murderer by his enemies”.

 

Tuchman believes in this and describes Alexander’s Papacy as one of.

 

 “Continuous violence, murders in churches, bodies in the Tiber, fighting of factions, burnings and lootings, arrests, tortures and executions, combined with scandal, frivolities and continuous ceremony”.

 

Even though Tuchman can be biased at times she states that she bases this claim on the tone of Burchard’s diary. Johannes Burchard (1450-1506) was an Italian Renaissance chronicler, who lived during Rodrigo’s time and recorded different events, to provide further evidence. Burchard’s accounts were utilised by many historians including Hibbert as he is seen as a reliable chronicler who experienced these events in person, recorded them and wrote them with an objective tone. It is in this way that Burchard is useful in the sense for an historians work and as a significant/primary source for Italian Renaissance affairs and more importantly Borgia historiography.

 

In 1499, King Louis XII sought an early alliance with Alexander. Louis needed help to revive French claim to Naples and for his marriage to be annulled. Against public opinion, Alexander accepted this alliance/deal as he saw it as a window of advancement for Cesare, who eventually became the Duke of Valence and established a military career with the French. This angered many including the rulers of Naples, the Sforza’s and even Spain. The Pope was creating enemies by progressing with this.

Alexander continued to help fund Cesare as the French campaign continued. His expenses emptied the treasury as enemies rose.

The Orsini were fighting Cesare and the Spanish were fighting the French for Naples. The Pope was caught in the middle, ready to ally himself with whichever power promised the most at any period.

In August 1503 Alexander became gravely ill and eventually died aged seventy three. The reason for his death was originally thought to be poison (as he had many enemies used poison and it was also known as an art much practised all over Italy and often used), but was in fact natural causes.

 

Borgia historiography is the subject of much debate, mostly concerning the claims, allegations and events that occurred during that specific period. 

The allegations can be explained by rumours. During the Renaissance many have considered Rome as a centre for gossip. Most will acknowledge this, as Barbara Tuchman famously quotes:

 

“In the bubbling stew of Rome's rumors”

 

Allegations made against the Borgia’s have remained unsubstantiated due to the lack of evidence present. However, questions further allude to what brought out these rumours and what influenced these claims. Aside from his power gain and the rumours that went along with it, Rodrigo’s offspring has been one factor of interest.

 Rodrigo’s offspring may have been the subject of further allegations and views of vindictiveness. A good example of this was Cesare’s military campaign in which he instilled fear within the French. This behaviour could easily be the result of Rodrigo’s influence and cause a more negative image of the family being that his military position was furthered by Rodrigo himself. It can be said that the various positions Rodrigo put his offspring in could have attributed to the negativity

His offspring (namely Cesare and Lucrezia) did concrete this ill view of the family, but the infamy Rodrigo attained in his life through his choices and deeds (including decisions about his offspring) marked the Borgia family more extensively. 

 

There have been varied opinions on Rodrigo, with a negative view being the more popular one throughout history’s course (e.g. his character was illustrated as one of corruptedness, lies, cheating etc).

Michael Mallett, in his book “The Borgia’s :The rise and fall of the most infamous family in history”, writes much to clear Rodrigo’s name, but when discussing his main intentions for his book he does acknowledge the status and reputation of Rodrigo within society early on and up until this day:

 

“It is my intention therefore in this book to present as wide a spectrum as possible of recent views about the Borgia’s in an attempt not to rehabilitate them but to explain them. To explain why they were so hated, so feared and so maligned; to explain what they were doing which so upset the Renaissance Italians as to bring down the whole weight of contemporary humanistic and later historical censure upon them”.

 

It is only in much more modern times where the stance on Rodrigo has been slightly more varied. Many either held a similar view, or slightly differed due to the new stance historians are now taking on his character.

Christopher Hibbert’s “The Borgia’s and Their Enemies” for example, utilises many modern based sources and content from contemporary writers, but throughout his work he aims for complete objectivity. Hibbert neither condemns nor praises Rodrigo, instead he tries to aim for the total truth through what ever official evidence he can extract from his list of contemporary sources and accounts from that time. Hibbert writes a narrative and aside from his contemporary sources uses characters such as Burchard.

 

While being weighed up as either completely villainous or justified, it should be said a true judgement cannot be fully reached. While, there is insufficient evidence to suggest Rodrigo was completely vindictive he was nowhere near honourable. During his reign as Pope he did achieve some good for Rome and the general society.

 

However, the evidence of what he and his family have done and accused of doing, has almost negated those few good deeds and their name has become one associated on a darker note. Even though Rodrigo cannot be measured at one end, his name has been seemingly imprinted throughout history as one for corruption; it is only in recent times where Rodrigo has been depicted on a slightly lighter note.

 

By evaluating Rodrigo morally through the claims and judgements made against him from his time till now, it’s to be determined that Rodrigo, by today’s standards, was morally corrupt and nowhere near fit for the position he attained. However, in the context of his time, where so many religious leaders were controversial (Leo X, Innocent VIII) Rodrigo can be considered no different than any other.

 

“Alexander VI may have been no worse then any other religious man at the time”.

 

Even though his life has been plagued by claims and accusations, he was still a significant historical personality, as Marion Johnson quotes

 

“Time makes no fine distinctions, just and unjust are tumbled in its maw. Perfect vice is as rare as perfect virtue, and where the names of so few last a generation it is perhaps better to be remembered for notoriety than to be consigned to the general oblivion”.