#i promised i will do bellonci's lucrezia next

[ducavalentinos]

Bellonci clearly had a nasty and evident hostility towards Cesare and throughout her book there are several moments of her bringing him up only to badmouth him, but this page here, that is right at the beginning, I thought it was the most interesting because is kind of an intro to how she will be presenting Cesare, and it sets up the stage for the bad fratricide telenovela she explores later on. Her claims here doesn’t escape the pattern too much of other works when dealing with Cesare, but that’s also why this page is so interesting, because it’s a good example of how many so-called “facts” about him and his life are only presented as such because they were repeated over and over again, and not because there is any substantial documented evidence behind it. So, she starts by saying: “No one could have had less vocation for the religious life than Cesare Borgia, and he was the first to admit it.” This claim is always present in most Borgia works, but it ends up being misleading because what Bellonci and other scholars considers as having the vocation for the religious life wasn’t much of a thing during Cesare’s time, not on his circle at least, at the Vatican. Having piety didn’t mattered as much as having diplomatic skills, political intelligence and the right connections. These men’s families, wealthy and noble in most cases, put them there to secure and support their interests within the Church. It was to guarantee themselves on both fronts, secular and ecclesiastical, to maintain their power and riches. That actually makes Cesare Borgia the rule and not the exception of the rule.

As for his admittance of his “lack of vocation” it can’t be seen as some definitive proof as Bellonci intends here, because whether he was being genuine or not (we will never know) we can’t ignore the political background of his “admittance”, that being: Rodrigo needed someone he trusted to accomplish his design of: 1. bringing the papal states under the full authority of the Church, and to destroy the Roman barons who were a constant source of trouble for the papacy and the city itself, and 2. to carve out a State for his family like other nobles italian families had done over the centuries. So Cesare’s speech had a very specific and difficult goal to achieve: to convince the cardinals and get the necessary votes so he could resign his cardinalate. It would be naïve to think that this speech, one in which their family’s advancement depended on, wouldn’t have been meticulously prepared by Cesare, alongside others, and with the supervision and approval of Rodrigo beforehand. And there is a some debate and assertions that Cesare forced his father into releasing him from his cardinalate, but there is no evidence for this. If anything Cesare seemed unsure, or at very least cautious about leaving his ecclesiastical life which brought him immense wealth and security, for a secular life where everything was yet to be determined. In any case, his feelings over this would have hardly mattered, the final decision about the family’s matters always came from Rodrigo. To think that Cesare had a voice, a “dark influence” over Rodrigo about these things is to underestimate the power and character of Rodrigo Borgia. He was a loving and generous father, but for that he expected nothing less than full obedience from his children, and he did not liked being contradicted. Cesare didn’t had a voice in these things anymore that Lucrezia, Juan or Gioffre did. If Rodrigo wanted him to stay a cardinal, then he would have stayed a cardinal, if Rodrigo wanted him to leave his cardinalate, then he would leave, whatever benefited their house better. “But after the collapse of the marriage negotiations with King Ferrante of Aragon, his hopes of escaping from the ecclesiastical life evaporated and it looked as if he was prepared to accept the career that his father had planned for him.” Cesare never accepted the career his father planned for him, and that he wanted to escape his ecclesiastic life, but are there any grounds for these claims? In all his years in the Church, there is not one recorded instance of Cesare showing an overwhelmingly distaste or any rebellion towards the career Rodrigo chose for him. And there is nothing, not even anecdotes hinting that he was trying to “escape it.” Taking a look at the administrative and pastoral activity that his vicars developed in their dioceses, demonstrates Cesare exercised his role dutifully and responsibly, and with interest. There is evidence of this intense management from the man he appointed for the headquarters of Pamplona, Martín Zapata. And from Jaume Conill’s pastoral work in the archbishopric of Valencia. There’s even a report from Conill to Cesare from August of 1494 in which he updates Cesare on the increase of confessions and rejoices at the shortage of victims due to the plague. Moreover Cesare wasn’t exactly as faithless as some authors like to claim he was, he had piety. It wasn’t a fervent, fanatical, blind piety, because it didn’t seem to be a trait in his family, from his father to his sister, they all had a pretty interesting and particular relationship with religion, but there’s more than one example where we can see religion was a part of his life also (another topic that needs exploring and maybe I’ll do it later), so there is nothing serious indicating that the ecclesiastical life was so alien, so dreadful for Cesare as that he sought to escape it, as it is assumed by Bellonci and others. Then she says: “What mattered to him most in any career was to avoid servility and mediocrity and to direct his energy towards the immediate acquistion of some position of authority.” I love this bit because I love how she mixes shady, groundless claims along with claims that do have more ground of being true. It’s true that Cesare always seemed to have tried to avoid mediocrity, although that wasn’t exclusive to him, the upbringing of noble children didn’t exactly leave room for mediocrity, it didn’t for Rodrigo Borgia’s children, he gave them the best education money could buy, and I don’t think he would have been satisfied with anything less than excellence from them, which in retrospect could be another reason why his relationship with Joffre wasn’t the same as his relatioship with Lucrezia, Cesare and Juan. As for avoiding servility, it’s actually difficult to ascertain. He doesn’t come across as someone who had an excessive willingness to please others (I don’t think that’s a bad thing btw lol), and maybe he did avoid it. But there’s some evidence that indicates he did enjoyed pleasing others, when possible, esp. those he appreciated it, just not at his and his family’s expense, which wasn’t that different a behavior from the rest of his family. He was generous and overall he seemed to liked being useful to people and to help solve problems. And the acquistion of some position of authority, it’s kinda of strange that Bellonci seemed to think that’s where he directed his energy towards, given that by 1492 right after his father became pope, if we judge by his letter to Piero de’ Medici, Cesare already had a pretty high position of authority, and he was perfectly aware of it. I mean after Rodrigo himself, Cesare was the one who had the most authority to deal any political affairs. Rodrigo trusted and relied on him, he was constantly by father’s side so he was privy to matters few others or no one else was. What Cesare seems to have directed his energy towards was trying to secure himself and his family’s power as much as he could so that when Rodrigo died, he wouldn’t be in a poor situation having to rely on others. It’s an entirely subjective point, we will never know what truly were his plans and feelings, but he doesn’t come across as someone wanting authority for the sake of wanting to have authority over others, nor does he seemed to have wanted power simply because he was power-hungry or something, but because he was painfully aware that all of his wealth and privileges were tied to his father, that power was essential for his survival and well-being, and that it was his responsibility (just as once it had been Rodrigo’s) to advance his family’s glory and perpetuate the legacy of the house of Borja. “Cesare was well aware of the gulf between his aspirations and reality and he had learnt the art of dissumulation. From infancy he had been destined to follow a career to which he knew he was unsuited, just as he knew Juan was ill-suited to his destined career of arms.” Bellonci is going on the premise that there was such a gulf between Cesare’s aspirations and his reality, when honestly there really wasn’t. This is a fabricated notion that comes from a modern perspective that men of the Church are men who are only fit for matters of spirituality, but as I said above, that doesn’t correspond with the reality, not even today, and definitely not in Cesare’s times. Men of the Church were first and foremost politicians and they acted both on spiritual matters as well as secular ones, even commanding armies and going full-on warriors if it was necessary. Bertrand du Pouget is a good example, also Ippolito d’Este, pope Leo IX, pope Clement VII, although he’s seen more as an anti-pope, and of course Della Rovere. Except for marriage, a churchman could do pretty much anything a layman could. Cesare surely knew that, so he wouldn't necessarily have felt this “gulf” between his reality and his aspirations, whatever those might have been, as it is claimed. His “warrior” side could be accommodated just fine within his ecclesiastic role. As for him learning the art of dissimulation, of course he did, as did Lucrezia and Rodrigo. It would a mistake to think they wore their hearts on their sleeves in public. If we’re being honest, any noble that wanted to survive the court they lived in needed a goal deal of dissimulation to go about with their lives. Cesare was no different than any of them on that. And finally, Bellonci has no way of knowing that Cesare from infancy knew he was unsuited for the career Rodrigo chosed for him, much less what he thought about Juan and his career. Bellonci is mostly projecting her own beliefs onto Cesare here and presenting it as a fact. His so-called unsuitablessness is unsubstantiated, apart from him sharing the same small vices his fellow cardinals did, as Alvisi amusingly says here: “Nè gli mancavano i piccoli vizi de’ giovani cardinali, e con loro fuggiva dalla mensa papale cui era convidato, perché vi era servita una sola vivanda. /Nor did he lack the small vices of the young cardinals, and with them he fled the papal table to which he was invited, because only one meal was served there.” And him apparently prefering to dress more as a layman than in his cardinal robes—which could have been for any number of reasons honestly, maybe he didn't liked it, yes, but also maybe it was just because they were more comfortable? esp. during the summer? and drew less attention to him? it's just a big leap to use his apparent dislike for ecclesiastical clothing as proof he hated being a churchman lol—there is surprisingly no scandals, nor accusations of bad behavior during these years of his life. Surely if he was so ill-suited, we would have at least one anecdote like the one about Rodrigo when he was still a cardinal at Siena? There is nothing of the kind. These claims come from a hindsighted stance of events, and it just serves to build up a motivation for the crime that is about to happen, without motivation, you can’t accuse Cesare as the culprit of Juan’s murder, and this personal drama is easier to sell than the simple jealousy over Sancia d’Aragona. “And so, twenty years earlier than most men, he had had to face the reality of a solitary existence, and he experienced either burning ambition or icy pessimism. His rancour doubtless played a large part in alienating him from the rest of the world, and he passed his complicated youth in that silence which is the first and last refuge of the frustrated. His sensitiveness got twisted into cruelty and made him monstrously lucid, he understood his father’s weakness, but the second-sight by which he infallibly got his own way was diabolical.” Beautiful writing, one that is meant to convince the reader he/she has a grasped the soul and mind of Cesare Borgia. But then again, as most of this paragraph, it’s all just literary without any substance. Reading Bellonci I wondered many times if she had a time machine or the Borgia family’s secret journal, because she speaks as if she were there with them, and they confessed all of their feelings and private thoughts to her. This is fiction.  She is implying that his solitary existence came from the fact that his reality was at odds with his desires, when there’s no proof to suggest that was the case, and that he was kind of a lone wolf? and that’s just blatantly incorrect. Maybe we can guess he might have felt lonely sometimes in a way that people with a high intellect, people who are ahead of their time usually does because it’s difficult to find other like-minded people, but he was and remained very close to his family and some friends until the end of his life, he was far from being a solitary man. He must have experienced “icy” pessimism and burning ambition just like any human being, but it certainly wasn’t his only two emotions, and very likely had nothing to do with Juan and his own career, and more with his family’s enemies and the political scenarios he was a part of. Was it really his rancour that alienated him from the world or was that the world he lived in so hostile to him and his family that they alienated themselves in order to feel safe? Hmmmm. And I’m sorry but, throwing complicated youth and Cesare Borgia in the same sentence is simply absurd. Are we talking about the same Cesare Borgia? The handsome, incredibly rich young man? Whom his contemporaries had to admit was charming, cheerful, polite and graceful? The one that when he wasn’t studying or working hard, we see him having fun with his Spaniard buddies, have love affairs, hunting, finding any excuse for dancing and bull-fighting, basically enjoying life wherever he could, this Cesare Borgia? Give me a break, I wish my youth was as complicated as his djsdjsds. The image of this dark, sulking, frustrated man, full of bitterness is very much a product of fiction, and totally incompatible with the reports written about him. As for “his sensitiveness” that got twisted “into cruelty”, i find it irking when scholars throw these words out there and don’t bother pointing out exactly what they are referring to. Borgia scholars are always talking about Cesare’s cruelty, his alleged “mean-streak”, but they don’t give any examples. If you are going to say a person is cruel, then I, at the very least, expect you follow that by an event where their cruelty is revealed. Explain your thought process, that’s all I’m asking. What are the pieces of evidence that revels Cesare’s sensitivity? and what are the pieces of evidence that revels Cesare’s cruelty? Otherwise it’s impossible to know what you mean and I’m not going to take your assessment of this person’s character seriously. Now I understand that when scholars speak of Cesare’s sensitivity, they are usually referring to his reaction towards the men responsible for the libels slandering him and his family, and although it would be understandable for him to feel outraged, I think it’s a mistake to link Cesare’s punishment of those men with his inability to take insults as Rodrigo says to the Venetian ambassador. If Cesare really was so sensitive about insults against him and his family, wouldn’t we have a long list of his victims that died simply for the deed of having offended him? which remarkably we don’t. That implies that Cesare could take insults, but when these insults were tied up with politics, he acted. The men spreading these libels, the Savelli letter being the main one, weren’t doing so to entertain the people of Rome and Italy. It wasn’t just titillating gossip. It was a clever and effective political propaganda made by Rodrigo and Cesare’s enemies to “kill” their reputation since they couldn’t, at that moment, literally kill them. It was meant to overshadow any and all positive policies their governments were doing, and put public opinion against them. Cesare understood what his father couldn’t, and he rightly tried to contain it somehow, which brings me to these men’s punishment and how it’s the only documented example I can think of that would fit the general definition of cruelty, and even so, it’s not a great one. There’s an anecdote about Cesare shooting bandits from his balcony at the Vatican with Lucrezia by his side that imo, would fit better the definition of “wanton cruelty” and having a “mean-streak”, but the authenticity of this story can't be verified, and it seems to have been just slander. Although it is odd Lucrezia’s biographers never mention this in their works, given that they don’t seem to mind authenticity when it comes to Cesare, and it would provide them with the best example for Cesare’s cruelty they go on so much about. I wonder why that is.  But when Bellonci wrote this sentence, she is aiming to conclude both her presentation of Cesare and why he murdered Juan. The whole point of this page she wrote was to create the right environment for the fratricide act. Cesare’s sensitivity made him incapable of dealing with his feelings of anger and frustration over his life, and that manifested into cruelty, that here is tied to the murder of his brother along with other crimes she uncritically pins on him, which turned him into a monster and only then he had the lucity to see what it had to be done since his father was too weak when it came to Juan. If he were to get his way, then he would have to commit a diabolical act. But apart from what I already wrote on why all the claims about Cesare’s being unsuited for this career, how he hated it and envied Juan are baseless, there’s another hole in this narrative, Rodrigo Borgia’s own decisions about Juan. They’re ambiguous af, and I think his plans weren’t always so set in stone as it is sometimes imagined, he was a shrewd, pragmatic man, so he probably changed his plans according to the political scenarios around him, and the benefits it would bring to his family and the papacy. Yes, he appointed Juan as Gonfalonier and Captain General of the Church, and invested many benefices upon him, but he also married Juan to Spain, and after the fiasco with the Orsinis (which to be fair, wasn’t just Juan’s fault) it seems he was sending Juan back to Spain, and it really looks as if Rodrigo’s design was to secure the Borgia’s power in both his native country and Italy. Juan seemed to be the one ensured to make that happen in Spain, while in Italy, it was up to Cesare, Lucrezia and Gioffre. Considering all this definitely puts obstacles to Bellonci’s assertions, and it’s easy to see why she ignored it. “His solitude was his fortress, and he used his inhuman courage and self-sufficiency to serve his idolatry of power.” No, his family was his fortress, again he was not a lone wolf, he worked in sync with his father, his brothers and his sister, and he very much relied on them and on others. He was brave, but it was far from being inhuman, and I absolutely have no idea what Bellonci means with his self-sufficiency given that his whole life was depended on others, and he knew it too, and he tried to change that. And his idolatry of power, it’s another thing scholars like to claim about him, but Cesare’s fascination with power, if we can call it that, wasn’t all that different from other nobles, and it wasn’t such to say he worshipped it.  I have no idea where there came from, probably from bad interpretations of The Prince. It wasn’t a fascination of power for the sake of it. Having power at Cesare’ time and environment was tightly connected with your survival. If you were a person in a high position of power, maintaining that power was important if you wanted to keep breathing. If you lost it, you could die. Just like many spaniards did when Della Rovere became pope. The reason Cesare wasn’t among them is precisely because he had enough influence and power within the College of Cardinals to afford some protection. If he hadn’t cultivated that, if he hadn’t accumulated power in the Romagna, he would have been murdered not long after his father died, like it happened with the children of other popes. And I guess that finishes it. It’s a powerful page, but then again I do think that most Borgia authors are very talented when it comes to writing, and constructing narratives, but when you break it down phrase by phrase, weighting in the evidence that exists for such claims, 80% of the time you will come up empty handed, or with contradicting information. Many of the things said about them, esp. about their characters, it’s a historical construction, or authors’s personal interpretations of the material they studied, since much of the Borgia’s history (that was shaped by their enemies) is wrapped in mysteries and subjectivity. Bellonci’s biases are all over her work, and it’s the strongest I’ve read with so far with Borgia bios. She had a mentality of only being fair to those she sympathized with. She detested Cesare the most, so she didn’t cared about being fair to him, she accepted all sources and gossip said about him without any discernment. He is the embodiment of only bad traits and his actions only carries chaos and “dark unrest”, but also I do believe she believed most of what she wrote about him. It’s not difficult to see why. Cesare’s black legend, alongside the unfortunate Machiavellian prince image, that is usually attached to his name with its awful connotations are always looming in the back of people’s imagination, and it’s almost impossible not to carry these preconceived notions to his historical figure when writing about him I imagine, not that she tried lool, she didn’t. She seemed to have already made her judgment about Lucrezia, Rodrigo and Cesare even before she studied all the material about their lives. Her mission was to rescue Lucrezia from her horrible reputation at all costs, and put her on a pedestal, while dragging the Borgia men and anyone else she didn’t liked, and well, she did succeeded at that, at least to a general audience and some academics.

#cesare borgia #maria bellonci #house borgia in history #borgia thoughts #so here's 9 pages of thoughts about cesare absolutely no one asked for djsdjsdjsjdsjds #but i guess that's what tumblr is for right?! #it was fun writing it #i promised i will do bellonci's lucrezia next #<33