See of Rome with the political party to which he was opposed. Partisan intemperance came to the aid of religious euthusiasm, and was, in its turn, reacted upon by the very enthusiasm which it inflamed. He lent his ear, thenceforth, to the enemies of Alexander; he speaks from that moment only as their organ and exponent; and his statements, at first earnest and enthusiastic, but for this very reason, the more likely to run into exaggeration, gradually lapse into downright fanaticism, till in the end they lose all title to be received as the testimony of an impartial witness.

Indeed, we need not go far to look for examples for the eager impetuosity with which he caught up every hostile representation against the conduct and character of this Pontiff. We saw, in a former article, how, in justification of resistance to the Pope's authority, he pleaded the invalidity of his title to the Papacy. This plea, of course, rested on the obligation which has so often since been repeated, that Alexander VI. owed his election to bribery. The story is told with a show of circumstantiality. The bribes and the bribed are alike specified. For instance, (to select a single one,) it is stated by Guicciardini, that Ascanio Sforza was bribed by the gift of Borgia's private palace. Unfortunately for the story, however, it appears that the palace was given to Battista Orsini. Now, the falsehood of one part of a story so circumstantial, goes far to cast discredit on the rest. But this is not all. There is a probability from plain facts, of a natural and laudable reason for these supposed gifts. One of the Sforza family, and one of the Orsini, were Alexander's generals; and what more reasonable than that he should reward members of great houses in whom he reposed such confidence, and whom he commissioned for such services? It is Guicciardini who loads Alexander with wholesale abuse, and it is no more possible to place reliance on the assertions of Guicciardini, than on the statements of Machiavelli. All the accusations against Alexander, so far as relates to his conduct after his elevation to the Holy See, will, if carefully scrutinized, be found tainted with inconsistency or incredibility. His care to provide for his bastard children, as they are coarsely called, is made the chief matter of charge against him, with no care to examine whether they were not his lawful children by a marriage before he entered the priesthood; or if not, whether they were not

born many long years before his elevation to the Papacyand whether that had not been followed by an alteration of character, which would not certainly have been indicated by his neglect and disregard of those who could scarcely have shared a criminality which preceded their own exis

tence.

It may be necessary to premise a few observations as to the calumnies on the character of Alexander. He probably had been a profligate, but it was while he was in the army; and in an age of profligacy it was not wonderful that a soldier should have a mistress. This seems to have been the extent of his depravity, which is not only greatly exaggerated as to its degree, but as to its duration. It is always spoken of as transcending all the ordinary bounds of human debauchery, and as continuing down to the very period of his papacy; nay, as rising then, if possible, to a higher pitch of atrocity than ever. Probably, there never was so gigantic a calumny. He shared with some of the most illustrious saints of the Church the shame of early profligacy-before he entered into the prelacy. It is said that he secretly continued the same life afterwards, but of that there is no credible evidence-there is only the testimony of those enemies of his or of the Papacy, whose mendacity in other respects is clearly established. We repeat, there is no credible proof that he was profligate after he entered into the prelacy or the Papacy. His chief calumniator is Guicciardini, and he is obliged to admit, that in Alexander there was "singular acuteness and sagacity, excellence in council, and in all weighty matters incredible concentration of ideas and astuteness." Strange qualities for an impersonation of beastly debauchery, and for one degraded below the level of the brute. But we will enable our readers perfectly to appreciate Guicciardini. In order to impress all men with an idea of the unfitness of Alexander for the Papacy, he says that his election was disliked, partly on account of his "nature and qualities, which were known to many-and to one in particular-the King of Naples, who expressed his sorrow with tears." This is gravely quoted by Dr. Madden. Now, Ferdinand of Naples had ample reason to feel a sorrow on account of the election of Alexander, "because of his nature and qualities;" assuming Alexander to have been what the historian describes him-as "of singular acuteness and sagacity"-" marvellous excellence in council, and incredible

astuteness;" for, Ferdinand was one of the most unscrupulous assailants of the Papacy-one who was for ever intriguing to rob the Church of part of her patrimony, and whose sorrow, therefore, at the election of so able a Pontiff was the sorrow of a spoliator at the appointment of a powerful and skilful protector to defend, and deprive him of, his anticipated prey. It is the very historian who records the tears of sorrow which Ferdinand felt at the election of Alexander, who also records the intrigues which Ferdinand had eagaged in with Pietro de Medici, to get one of the Orsini possession of certain castles adjacent to the Pontifical territory, "for he considered it would be advantageous to him to have Orsini, who was a military man, and also a relative of his, in possession of such strongholds near Rome. For he always looked on the power of the Popes as capable of being made instruments of mischief to the peace of his kingdom, which was an ancient fief of the Holy See, and which extended for a great many miles along the borders of the ecclesiastical states.' And the historian adds, "that he always made it a principal point in his policy to keep all, or at least the chief of the Roman barons under his controul. It is easy to appreciate the "tears of sorrow" shed by this politic prince at the election of a Pope of " marvellous excellence. in council, and wonderful astuteness and sagacity." He saw he should have his match, and should not find it any easy task to attempt to overreach or to rob the Papacy.

Let us look a little into the aspect of Italian politics under the Popedom of Alexander. The Borgias were a new and rising family; a fact not sufficiently attended to, as accounting for their being the objects of universal envy, enmity, and jealousy, especially when pursuing a policy which peculiarly exposed them to the rage of those who now could not rob the Church with impunity. The more ancient and powerful houses of the Orsini and Colonnesi were arrayed against him; his own subjects intriguing with Ferdinand of Naples to assail and despoil him. The Orsini were assisted by Ferdinand to purchase certain fiefs within the Roman territory, in order to aid them in their common purpose of embarrassing and embroiling the Pontiff. "These places," says Mr. Napier, "were, as well as most of the Orsini states, situated about Rome, Viterbo, and Civita Vecchio, and maintained a line of political intercourse with Naples; and the Pope thus saw

himself bearded in the heart of his dominions, by one of the most powerful barons, supported by two unfriendly states in close family connection, for Orsino was related to Naples; and it had always been one of Ferdinand's objects to possess some strongholds in the Papal territory that might connect him with the factions." Here is the case stated by a Protestant historian. And is it not palpable that the Pope was put upon the defensive-by misconceptions, aggression, and traitorous machination? In self-defence he assembled his forces-married Lucrezia, his natural daughter (before he was Pope) to the lord of Pesaro, who commanded them, and prepared to attack Orsino. In so doing he was acting most truly as a Pastor: he was rescuing his sheep from the wolves-his subjects from oppression. Ferdinand of Naples, in concert with Florence, attacked the territories of the Holy See, and Milan, its ally, invoked the aid of France, and brought down on Italy Charles of Anjou.

Now, who were the causes of all the disasters that ensued? Clearly the aggressors. And who were they? Clearly the unprincipled and rapacious Ferdinand and his equally unscrupulous allies, the Florentines. It was at this very period the influence of Savonarola was allpowerful in Florence, and so far from his influence being exerted against this unjust aggression on the part of his country, plain facts prove that he was its main mover. In other words, he was aiding and abetting an atrocious tyrant in an unscrupulous aggression on the proper rights and possessions of the Holy See. In short, he was, so far, a leader of rebels against the Holy See of Rome; not merely rebels, but robbers, leagued with one of the most ruffianly princes of the age, to rob and plunder the See of St. Peter. In our former article on Savonarola, it was shown that at this period he was certainly in a state of disobedience to the Holy See which could not be justified, and had imagined himself entrusted with a Divine mission and supernatural inspirations. It is into this portion of his extraordinary career that we now propose to pursue the melancholy narrative. In order to judge dispassionately of his portraiture of Alexander VI., it will be necessary to enter fully into every particular of his history; and we regret to say that it is impossible to study his character in this period of his life, without a painful conviction of the peril to which even the loftiest piety and the

VOL. XXXVIII.-NO. LXXV.

3

purest purposes are exposed, under the influence of political excitement and popular applause. It is, however, in no spirit of scorn we desire to speak of that illustrious and ill-fated man; and we should check the inclination to do so, provoked by the misrepresentations of those who. in their haste to calumniate à Pontiff, heap indiscriminating eulogies on a demagogue. For, whatever Savonarola might have been, at an earlier period of his life, (and then we are sure that if not a saint, he was in the way to have become one,) at the time of which we now speak, he was merely an agitator, a schismatic, and a fanatic. He was in open rebellion against the Holy See, (as was shown by the writer of the article in Number lxxiii.); and we shall see how he loaded his soul with the guilt of murder (at least by assent) in the wild pursuit of power. His was a noble soul: but so was Lucifer's: and he fell like Lucifer, by reason of that first and last of sins-" that last infirmity of noble minds"-the sin of pride. The ruin of such a soul is a theme for angels' tears; and the fate of such a man a fitting subject only for deep sorrow. In the whole of history we know not a more mournful and melancholy tragedy." But there are stern lessons which truth must deduce from it, yet the requisitions of justice must be satisfied; nor must we suffer a false charity, or simulated candour to exalt one character for the purpose of degrading another. The truth must be spoken-the proofs we shall disclose-the plain fact is, that at this period Savonarola was an excited fanatic, had long been an agitator, and had ended with being an avowed schismatic.

Thus it happened that, from a variety of causes, the political sympathies of this enthusiastic man were all enlisted against the political position, in relation to Italian affairs, then occupied by the Papacy. Unfortunately, too, the character of Savonarola is inseparably associated with the character of the Papacy in his day; for this,

*We cannot help alluding to a strange fallacy of the admirers of Savonarola. They exult in this supposed fact, that St. Philip Neri kept his picture. Assuming this fact to be (as it is not) by any means adequately attested-can they venture to say that it was for veneration, or for warning? or if by way of veneration, was it for his original or his ultimate character?