Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from She Stands Accused, by Victor MacClure
In the next generation the house of Este was sullied by a sanguinary and
incestuous race in the nuptials of Alfonso I with Lucretia, a bastard of
Alexander VI, the Tiberius of Christian Rome. This modern Lucretia might
have assumed with more propriety the name of Messalina, since the woman
who can be guilty, who can even be accused, of a criminal intercourse
with a father and two brothers must be abandoned to all the
licentiousness of a venal love.
That, if the phrase may be pardoned, is swatting a butterfly with a
sledge-hammer! Poor little Lucretia, described by the excellent M.
Moinet as a "bon petit coeur," is enveloped in the political ordure
slung by venal pamphleteers at the masterful men of her race. My friend
Rafael Sabatini, than whom no man living has dug deeper into Borgia
history, explains the calumniation of Lucretia in this fashion: Adultery
and promiscuous intercourse were the fashion in Rome at the time of
Alexander VI. Nobody thought anything of them. And to have accused the
Borgia girl, or her relatives, of such inconsiderable lapses would have
been to evoke mere shrugging. But incest, of course, was horrible. The
writers paid by the party antagonistic to the Borgia growth in power
therefore slung the more scurrile accusation. But there is, in truth,
just about as much foundation for the charge as there is for the other,
that Lucretia was a poisoner. The answer to the latter accusation, says
my same authority, may take the form of a question: WHOM DID LUCRETIA
POISON? As far as history goes, even that written by the Borgia enemies,
the reply is, NOBODY!
Were one content, like Gibbon, to take one's history like snuff there
would be to hand a mass of caliginous detail with which to cause
shuddering in the unsuspecting reader. But in mere honesty, if in
nothing else, it behoves the conscientious writer to examine the
sources of his information. The sources may be--they too frequently
are--contaminated by political rancour and bias, and calumnious
accusation against historical figures too often is founded on mere envy.
And then the rechauffeurs, especially where rechauffage is made from
one language to another, have been apt (with a mercenary desire to
give their readers as strong a brew as possible) to attach the darkest
meanings to the words they translate. In this regard, and still apropos
the Borgias, I draw once again on Rafael Sabatini for an example of what
I mean. Touching the festivities celebrating Lucretia's wedding in the
Vatican, the one eyewitness whose writing remains, Gianandrea Boccaccio,
Ferrarese ambassador, in a letter to his master says that amid singing
and dancing, as an interlude, a "worthy" comedy was performed. The
diarist Infessura, who was not there, takes it upon himself to describe
the comedy as "lascivious." Lascivious the comedies of the time commonly
were, but later writers, instead of drawing their ideas from the
eyewitness, prefer the dark hints of Infessura, and are persuaded that
the comedy, the whole festivity, was "obscene." Hence arises the
notion, so popular, that the second Borgia Pope delighted in shows which
anticipated those of the Folies Bergere, or which surpassed the danse du
ventre in lust-excitation.
Explanation
Victor MacClure’s She Stands Accused (1932) is a defensive reassessment of Lucrezia Borgia, one of the most maligned figures of the Italian Renaissance. The excerpt critiques the sensationalized, often fabricated accusations against her—particularly those of incest, poisoning, and debauchery—while exposing the political propaganda, historical bias, and linguistic distortions that shaped her infamous reputation. Below is a detailed breakdown of the passage, focusing on its arguments, literary techniques, historical context, and broader significance.
1. Context: The Borgias and Historical Slander
The House of Borgia (15th–16th century) was a powerful Spanish-Italian family that produced two popes (Calixtus III and Alexander VI) and became synonymous with corruption, nepotism, and ruthlessness. Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519), daughter of Pope Alexander VI and sister of Cesare Borgia, was particularly vilified by contemporaries and later historians. Her marriages (three in total, two annulled under suspicious circumstances) and her family’s political maneuvering made her a target for black propaganda—especially from rivals like the della Rovere family (who later produced Pope Julius II, a bitter enemy of the Borgias).
MacClure’s excerpt is part of a revisionist trend (popularized by writers like Rafael Sabatini in The Life of Cesare Borgia, 1912) that challenges the mythology surrounding the Borgias, arguing that many accusations were exaggerated or fabricated for political gain.
2. Themes in the Excerpt
A. The Weaponization of Incest Accusations
- The passage opens with a hyperbolic condemnation of Lucrezia’s alleged incest with her father (Alexander VI) and brothers (Cesare and Juan). MacClure dismisses this as political slander:
"Incest, of course, was horrible. The writers paid by the party antagonistic to the Borgia growth in power therefore slung the more scurrilous accusation."
- Why incest? Because adultery was commonplace in Renaissance Rome (even among clergy), but incest was taboo enough to shock and discredit the Borgias.
- MacClure suggests that if Lucrezia were merely promiscuous, her enemies wouldn’t have bothered—incest was the nuclear option in character assassination.
B. The Poisoner Myth
- The poisoning accusation is another persistent legend. MacClure deconstructs it with sarcasm:
"WHOM DID LUCRETIA POISON? As far as history goes, even that written by the Borgia enemies, the reply is, NOBODY!"
- The lack of verifiable victims exposes the accusation as baseless rumor.
- This was a common trope against powerful women (e.g., Catherine de’ Medici, Agnes Sorel)—poison was seen as a feminine, covert weapon, playing into misogynistic fears of female cunning.
C. Historical Distortion and "Rechauffage"
- MacClure coins the term "rechauffeurs" (from French réchauffer, "to reheat") to describe historians who recycle and exaggerate old slander without critical examination.
- Example: Gianandrea Boccaccio (Ferrarese ambassador) describes Lucrezia’s wedding festivities as including a "worthy" comedy, but Infessura (a hostile chronicler) calls it "lascivious".
- Later writers prefer Infessura’s version, inflating it to "obscene"—thus transforming a standard Renaissance entertainment into a debauched orgy.
- This reflects how translation and reinterpretation (especially across languages) distort history for sensationalism.
D. Political Bias and Historical "Snuff-Taking"
- MacClure critiques uncritical historians (like Edward Gibbon, who wrote The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) for accepting salacious rumors without scrutiny:
"Were one content, like Gibbon, to take one's history like snuff..."
- "Taking history like snuff" = consuming it superficially, for titillation, without verification.
- He argues that political rancor (e.g., the della Rovere vs. Borgia feud) contaminated sources, and later writers compounded the lies.
3. Literary Devices & Rhetorical Strategies
MacClure employs several persuasive techniques to dismantle Lucrezia’s black legend:
| Device | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Hyperbole | "swatting a butterfly with a sledge-hammer" | Mocks the exaggerated accusations against Lucrezia. |
| Sarcasm/Irony | "Poor little Lucretia, described as a 'bon petit coeur'" | Contrasts her vilification with a sympathetic (if ironic) portrait. |
| Rhetorical Question | "WHOM DID LUCRETIA POISON?" | Challenges the reader to find evidence, exposing the myth. |
| Appeal to Authority | Cites Rafael Sabatini (a respected Borgia scholar) | Lends credibility to his argument. |
| Metaphor | "enveloped in the political ordure slung by venal pamphleteers" | Ordure (filth) = propaganda; venal (corrupt) writers spread lies. |
| Parallel Structure | "Adultery and promiscuous intercourse were the fashion... But incest, of course, was horrible." | Highlights the selective outrage of her accusers. |
4. Significance: Why Does This Matter?
A. Gender and Historical Slander
- Lucrezia’s case exemplifies how powerful women were (and are) demonized through sexualized rumors.
- Her real crimes (if any) were likely political (e.g., complicity in her family’s schemes), but mythologized into monstrosity.
- Compare to Anne Boleyn (accused of incest, witchcraft) or Marie Antoinette ("Let them eat cake")—women’s reputations are weaponized.
B. The Borgia Myth in Culture
- The black legend of the Borgias was perpetuated by art and literature:
- Victor Hugo’s Lucrezia Borgia (1833) – Portrays her as a poisonous femme fatale.
- Dumas’ The Borgias (1839–40) – Reinforces the incest and murder tropes.
- Modern media (e.g., The Borgias TV series, Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood) still debates her guilt.
- MacClure’s revisionism was part of a 20th-century backlash against these Romantic-era exaggerations.
C. Historical Methodology
- The excerpt is a meta-commentary on historiography:
- Warns against uncritical acceptance of primary sources (especially from biased contemporaries).
- Highlights how translation and reinterpretation can distort facts.
- Advocates for source criticism—a modern historical practice.
5. Conclusion: Lucrezia as a Victim of History
MacClure’s passage is not an exoneration but a call for fairness. He argues that Lucrezia was not a saint, but neither was she the incestuous, poison-wielding monster of legend. Instead, she was:
- A political pawn in her family’s ambitions.
- A victim of misogynistic propaganda.
- A casualty of historical sensationalism.
His skeptical, almost cynical tone reflects a modern distrust of "official" narratives, urging readers to question the sources behind historical villains. In an era where fake news and character assassination remain potent tools, MacClure’s 1932 warning feels eerily contemporary.
Final Thought:
If Lucrezia Borgia were alive today, she’d likely be cancelled by Twitter, her name a hashtag for scandal—proving that some things never change. MacClure’s defense reminds us that history is written by the winners, and truth is often the first casualty in the war of reputations.