[*230] An interesting book has been announced on the medical practice of that day: Tarulli, I medici ed i primordi della scuola medica Perugina. Meanwhile cf. Tarulli, Appunti Storici, in Boll. per l'Umbria, vol. XII., p. 385 et seq. According to Petrarch, Astrology and Medicine were different branches of a common charlatanism. Cf. Libri IV., Invectivarum contra medicum quemdam. Heywood, The Ensamples of Fra Filippo, a Study of Mediæval Siena (Siena, 1901), p. 325. Voigt, Il Risorgimento dell'antichità classica (Fir., 1897), vol. I., p. 77 et seq. Owen, The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance (London, 1893), p. 119, and cf. Chaucer in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. For medical practice in the fourteenth century, see Fiori di Medicina di Maestro Gregorio Medicofisico Del Sec. XIV. (Bologna, Gaetano Romagnuoli, 1865), and cf. Il Lasca, Nov. I., et X., Cena Prima. Pico della Mirandola was one of the first who entered the lists against these charlatans in his treatise in twelve books, Adversus Astrologos (Venice, 1498).
[*231] Gaspar Veronensis in Muratori, R.I.S., III., pt. II., 1036, speaking of the young Cardinal, says: "Formosus est, laetissimo vultu, aspectuque jocundo, lingua ornata atque melliflua, qui mulieres egregias visas ad se amandum gratior allicit, et mirum in modum concitat, plusquam magnes ferrum; quas tamen intactas di mittere sane putatur."
|
"Cæsare magna fuit, nunc Roma est maxima, Sextus Regnat Alexander; ille vir, iste Deus." |
[*233] All that Dennistoun says of the Borgia must be accepted with care. He takes the Puritan point of view in a country where such a thing as Puritanism has happily seldom existed. Pastor, to whom it seems natural to refer the reader [A History of the Popes] is almost equally censorious though more discerning in his condemnation. He, apparently holding a brief for the Papacy, felt it incumbent upon him to restore the balance of some of his judgments by denouncing Alexander VI. It is strange that the only two sane historians of the Borgia should be Protestants. I gladly refer the reader with every confidence to the work of Creighton [A History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome, vols. IV. and V.] and of Gregorovius [Lucrezia Borgia].
[*234] As for Machiavelli's opinion of Alexander VI., it is the most valuable we could possibly have, but he says little of him, thinking him of small importance beside Cesare. Dennistoun, not content with abusing the Pope himself by taking words out of the context, tries to bring Machiavelli to his way of thinking. This is not easily excused. In chapter xi. of Il Principe, Machiavelli says: "Di tutti i Pontefici che sono stati mai, mostrò quanto un Papa e con il denaro e con le forze si poteva prevalere." As Creighton says: "The Borgia have become legendary as types of unrestrained wickedness, and it is difficult to judge them fairly without seeming to palliate iniquity.... The exceptional infamy which attaches to Alexander VI. is largely due to the fact that he did not add hypocrisy to his other vices.... Moreover, Alexander VI. was the only man in Italy who clearly knew what he wanted to do and who steadily pursued his purpose" (vol. V., pp. 51-52).
[235] Among numerous conflicting statements, the Duke of Gandia is named Giovanni by Sismondi, in Biog. Universelle, voce Borgia, Cæsar; and Francesco by Despartes, voce Alexander VI. in the same work.
[*237] The Borgia entered as strangers into the cunning but childish game of deception and lying that made up Italian politics. Accepting the principles of the game, as all must who would play at all, they broke through its absurd conventions. It was this that caused them to be so universally hated. Savonarola, extraordinary though his success was, knew that the greatest statesman in Italy saw through his treason and his ambitions. The other politicians were beaten at their own game, and loudly proclaimed that they had been cheated. But, as Creighton reminds us, "Alexander dealt unscrupulously with unscrupulous men, and played for higher stakes than any of them dreamed of." Even his love for his children has been thrown in his face. Would it have been a virtue in him to hate them?
[238] Guicciardini, ch. i.