Part 16 (1/2)

As a result of Ercole's insistence, the question of the reduction of Ferrara's yearly tribute as a fief of the Holy See from four hundred ducats to one hundred florins was brought to a vote in the consistory, September 17th. It was expected that there would be violent opposition.

Alexander explained what Ercole had done for Ferrara, his founding convents and churches, and his strengthening the city, thus making it a bulwark for the States of the Church. The cardinals were induced to favor the reduction by the intervention of the Cardinal of Cosenza--one of Lucretia's creatures--and of Messer Troche, Caesar's confidant. They authorized the reduction and the Pope thanked them, especially praising the older cardinals--the younger, those of his own creation, having been more obstinate.[112]

The same day he secured possession of the property he had wrested from the barons who had been placed under his ban August 20th. These domains, which embraced a large part of the Roman Campagna, were divided into two districts. The center of one was Nepi; that of the other Sermoneta--two cities which Lucretia, their former mistress, immediately renounced.

Alexander made these duchies over to two children, Giovanni Borgia and Rodrigo. At first the Pope ascribed the paternity of the former child to his own son Caesar, but subsequently he publicly announced that he himself was its father.

It is difficult to believe in such unexampled shamelessness, but the legal doc.u.ments to prove it are in existence. Both bulls are dated September 1, 1501, and are addressed to my beloved son, ”the n.o.ble Giovanni de Borgia and Infante of Rome.” In the former, Alexander states that Giovanni, a child of three years, was the natural son of Caesar Borgia, unmarried (which he was at the time of its birth), by a single woman. By apostolic authority he legitimated the child and bestowed upon it all the rights of a member of his family. In the second brief he refers to the proceedings in which the child had been declared to be Caesar's son, and says verbatim: ”Since it is owing, not to the duke named (Caesar), but to us and to the unmarried woman mentioned that you bear this stain (of illegitimate birth), which for good reasons we did not wish to state in the preceding instrument; and in order that there may be no chance of your being caused annoyance in the future, we will see to it that that doc.u.ment shall never be declared null, and of our own free will, and by virtue of our authority, we confirm you, by these presents, in the full enjoyment of everything as provided in that instrument.” Thereupon he renews the legitimation and announces that even if this his child, which had hitherto been declared to be Caesar's, shall in future, in any doc.u.ment or act be named and described as his (Caesar's), and even if he uses Caesar's arms, it shall in no way inure to the disadvantage of the child, and that all such acts shall have the same force which they would have had if the boy had been described not as Caesar's, but as his own, in the doc.u.ments referring to his legitimation.[113]

It is worthy of note that both these doc.u.ments were executed on one and the same day, but this is explained by the fact that the canon law prevented the Pope from acknowledging his own son. Alexander, therefore, extricated himself from the difficulty by telling a falsehood in the first bull. This lie made the legitimation of the child possible, and also conferred upon it the rights of succession; and this having once been embodied in a legal doc.u.ment, the Pope could, without injury to the child, tell the truth.

September 1, 1501, Caesar was not in Rome. Even a man of his stamp may have blushed for his father, when he thus made him the rival of this b.a.s.t.a.r.d for the possession of the property. Later, after Alexander's death, the little Giovanni Borgia pa.s.sed for Caesar's son; he had, moreover, been described as such by the Pope in numerous briefs.[114]

It is not known who was the mother of this mysterious child. Burchard speaks of her merely as a ”certain Roman.” If Alexander, who described her as an ”unmarried woman,” told the truth, Giulia Farnese could not have been its mother.

It is possible, however, that the Pope's second statement likewise was untrue, and that the ”Infante of Rome” was not his son, but was a natural child of Lucretia. The reader will remember that in March, 1498, the Ferrarese amba.s.sador reported to Duke Ercole that it was rumored in Rome that the Pope's daughter had given birth to a child. This date agrees perfectly with the age of the Infante Giovanni in September, 1501. Both doc.u.ments regarding his legitimation, which are now preserved in the Este archives, were originally in Lucretia's chancellery. She may have taken them with her from Rome to Ferrara, or they may have been brought to her later. Eventually we shall find the Infante at her court in Ferrara, where he was spoken of as her ”brother.” These facts suggest that the mysterious Giovanni Borgia was Lucretia's son--this, however, is only a hypothesis. The city of Nepi and thirty-six other estates were conferred upon the child as his dukedom.

The second domain, including the duchy of Sermoneta and twenty-eight castles, was given to little Rodrigo, Lucretia's only son by Alfonso of Aragon.

Under Lucretia's changed conditions, this child was an embarra.s.sment to her, for she either was not allowed or did not dare to bring a child by her former husband to Ferrara. For the sake of her character let us a.s.sume that she was compelled to leave her child among strangers. The order to do so, however, does not appear to have emanated from Ferrara, for, September 28th, the amba.s.sador Gerardi gave his master an account of a call which he made on Madonna Lucretia, in which he said, ”As her son was present, I asked her--in such a way that she could not mistake my meaning--what was to be done with him; to which she replied, 'He will remain in Rome, and will have an allowance of fifteen thousand ducats.'”[115] The little Rodrigo was, in truth, provided for in a princely manner. He was placed under the guardians.h.i.+p of two cardinals--the Patriarch of Alexandria and Frances...o...b..rgia, Archbishop of Cosenza. He received the revenues of Sermoneta, and he also owned Biselli, his unfortunate father's inheritance; for Ferdinand and Isabella of Castile authorized their amba.s.sador in Rome, Francesco de Roxas, January 7, 1502, to confirm Rodrigo in the possession of the duchy of Biselli and the city of Quadrata. According to this act his t.i.tle was Don Rodrigo Borgia of Aragon, Duke of Biselli and Sermoneta, and lord of Quadrata.[116]

FOOTNOTES:

[99] Cavallieri to Ercole, Lyons, August 8, 1501. The Pope has written his nuncio that he agreed to the duke's demands, for the purpose of concluding the marriage, which would be extraordinarily advantageous to himself and the Duke of Romagna.

[100] Despatches of the Ferrarese amba.s.sador, Bartolomeo Cartari, from Venice, June 25, July 28, and August 2, 1501. Archives of Modena.

[101] Ercole's letter to Pozzi in Ferrara, August 25, 1501. Maximilian's letters are not in the Este archives but in Vienna.

[102] The instrument was drawn by Beneimbene.

[103] Cardinal Ferrari to Ercole, Rome, August 27, 1501.

[104] Ducal Records, September 1, 1501.

[105] The letter is reproduced in Zucchetti's Lucrezia Borgia, d.u.c.h.essa di Ferrara, Milan, 1869.

[106] Ed altre cose che egli disse per maggiormente magnificare il fatto. Matteo Ca.n.a.le to the Duke of Ferrara, Rome, September 11, 1501.

[107] Quale mi pare gia essere optima Ferrarese. Despatch from Rome, September 15th.

[108] Che voleva havessimo veduto che la d.u.c.h.essa non era zoppa.

Saraceni to Ercole, Rome, September 16th.

[109] Rome, September 23d, Saraceni.

[110] Despatch, September 25th.

[111] To this Ercole replied in rea.s.suring terms. Letter to his orators in Rome, September 18, 1501.