Quantcast
Channel: Loyalty Binds Me
Viewing all 76 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

The Big Question: Was Rodrigo Borgia Really The Father of Cesare, Juan & Lucrezia Borgia?

February 20, 2013, 6:41 am
$
0
0

As I mentioned in my review yesterday, G.J Meyer has presented some very interesting arguments over the paternity of Cesare, Lucrezia and Juan Borgia. It has long been accepted that Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, was their father and legitimised them after he became Pope. However, it seems that logic says something different - although over 500 years later it's not possible to prove it beyond doubt. In his book, Meyer looks at various source materials that point to the possibility that actually Rodrigo couldn't have been their father. Today, I'm going to very briefly summarise Meyer's findings (I won't go into too much detail, you'll have to buy the book when it comes out in April to find out more!) in bullet point format, and I shall leave it to you to form your own opinions on the matter.
  • How did Rodrigo maintain a relationship with Vanozza Cattanei and maintain such a large family without anyone taking  much notice, even in gossipy chronicles of the time?
  • All of Vanozza's children were born in Spain, while Rodrigo was in Italy - they were also incredibly likely to have been conceived in Spain too. How could Rodrigo flit so easily between the two countries when travel took so long?
  • There is no concrete evidence that at any point before or after his election that he fathered a child or even had a mistress or indeed any brief sexual involvement with anyone except for with Giulia Farnese.
  • De Roos, who completed a huge five volume work on the Borgia family is almost completely at odds with everything we know about the Borgia myth - having compiled a ton of documents that go some way to show that Rodrigo wasn't actually the father of the Borgia children. In his first volume he publishes a huge revision of the Borgia family tree!
  • Meyer states that the four Borgia children (including Joffre) had the same mother and father, and at least three other older siblings by the same parents. Included in this is Pedro Luis, who inherited massive wealth upon his fathers death (long before Rodrigo became Pope) as well as two other daughters.
  • At least 5 of the children, if not all 7, were born in Spain - Meyer mentions that this is likely although more source material is needed. Pedro Luis is never known to have been outside of Spain and there is no record of Cesare being in Spain before 1488 - indeed he says later to the Viceroy of Naples that he and his siblings were Spanish by birth. Burchard also speaks of Cesare as a native of Valencia. Rodrigo Borgia left Spain in around 1455 (around 5 years before the birth of Pedro Luis) and returned just the once, staying between June 1472 and September 1473. That was way too late to impregnate the mother of Isabella and Girolama Borgia, and way too soon to be responsible for Cesare or Juan. And so, how could he be the father of the seven, unless he was constantly flicking backwards and forwards between Spain and Italy? Travel in those days was slow, and to do it at such a frequency isn't quite believable.
  • It is much more likely that the father of the children was Rodrigo's nephew - Guillen Ramon Lanzol y de Borja, which makes them Rodrigo's grand-nephew's.nieces.
  • When Vanozza was pregnant with Joffre in or around 1481, Guillen died and Vanozza made her way to Rome with her children and came under the protection of Rodrigo. She never lived with Rodrigo but both before and after his reign as Pope she maintained her own household.
  • Documents stating that Rodrigo was the father of the children are quite suspect for instance, a bull legitimising a child with the name of Cesare de Boria and Cesare de Borja states that the child is the son of a cardinal and an unmarried woman - neither of the parents are named. If the bull were authentic, it is unlikely that it would have used the Spanish form of the Borgia name. There is also no mention of the bull in the Vatican's records, which is odd as all authentic bulls were entered into a registry before they were sent off. It should also be mentioned that as the second son, Cesare had no need to be legitimised as he stood to inherit nothing.
  • While Rodrigo often called the children his "beloved son/daughter", he also called everyone else the same - in letters he referred to reigning monarchs as his "beloved son/daughter", and he called pretty much everyone he had dealings with by the same title. He also refers to Lucrezia as his "beloved daughter in Christ". Such titles mean nothing, especially when the reigning pontiff calls everyone the same thing.
  • Vanozza Cattanei is never known to have stepped foot inside the Vatican and none of Rodrigo/Alexander's enemies accuse him of sexual immorality - even Savonarola who hated Pope Alexander ever mentioned such things! Had he been accused of such things, Savonarola would certainly have said something in his famous sermons!
  • Rodrigo did not buy the dukedom of Gandia for Pedro Luis - he inherited much lands in Gandia upon the death of Guillen which later became the centre of the duchy. Pedro also lent Rodrigo a substantial sum of money in 1483, rather than being dependant on the Cardinal.
  • A Spanish royal brief has the name of Juan Borgia's father omitted. All that can be seen is the words "The late illustrious" - were his father a cardinal, it would have been worded "most reverend". This points to the fact that his father was a layman, rather than a churchman - and the deletion of the name suggests deliberate tampering.
And thus, Meyer comes to the conclusion that Rodrigo Borgia can't have been the father of Cesare, Juan and Lucrezia (And Joffre, but everyone forgets about him). Although a brief overview, I haven't gone into too much detail so as not to spoil the book for you all but rest assured the chapter itself is an eye opener. It has certainly made me question the age old assumption that Rodrigo was indeed the father of the three most famous Borgia children in history. It's my next aim to get hold of a copy of De Roos and study it closely, comparing it to the conclusions made by Meyer. It will certainly be a very interesting thing to look at closer, albeit a lot of work as I would imagine much of the documentation is held within the papal archives.

This could certainly be a very interesting mission indeed....

Further Reading

↧
Search

The Death of Cesare Borgia

March 12, 2013, 1:00 am
$
0
0
Cesare Borgia

506 years ago today, one of the greatest military commanders that Italy had ever seen was killed at the Siege of Viana. On 12th March 1507, Cesare Borgia rode to his death following a life of extraordinary feats - son (possibly, please see this post for more information on that) of a Pope, the first man ever to resign from the College of Cardinals, Gonfalonier and commander of the Papal armies; he died as he had spent most of the final years of his life, alone. As I'm sure many of my readers are aware, I have the greatest respect for Cesare Borgia and am a huge advocate of dismissing the terrible rumours that surround his life - and so today I will write about his death, the circumstances surrounding it and how its wider effects.

Sergio Peris-Mancheta as Cesare in Los Borgia

Having escaped from his imprisonment in Spain, Cesare headed to Navarre where he joined forces with his father in law Jean D'Albret. There, he spent his time fighting with Jean and helping the King of Navarre besiege various towns. There is a fantastic story in which an old man remembered Cesare passing through the town of Mendigorria at the head of a massive army. The old man spoke of how Cesare was, "a big man, strong, handsome, and soro" (Soro is an untranslatable word used to describe young falcons). It is said that Cesare carried a particular weapon which is incredibly unusual, but mentioned many times by other chroniclers who described Cesare's time in Navarre - a short, thick, double pointed lance. Cesare Borgia, a man who had been imprisoned and suffered great hardship since 1503, was back in the saddle and at the height of health and fitness.

During the first week of March, Cesare joined up with King Jean of Navarre at the town of Viana. The plan was to besiege and take the town from Luis de Beaumonte, a man who held the town on behalf of the Spanish monarchs. Considering as how this town was in the kingdom of Navarre, King Jean wanted the town back in his control and Cesare, the man who had made the Romagna fall to his knees, would have found the town and its castle an easy target. It seems however that Cesare was overconfident and the wariness he was so famous for when it came to warfare had relaxed. In a way, the events of the next few days were somewhat inevitable, given the overconfidence of Borgia, and the lack of experience he had in commanding a fully trained army rather than paid mercenaries.

Mark Ryder as Cesare in Borgia: Faith & Fear

On the night of 11th March, Cesare withdrew his troops into the safety of the town due to a harsh rainstorm. He didn't think that Beaumonte would attack during such bad weather, but this was a mistake and Beaumonte had been waiting for Cesare to make such a move. Under the cover of darkness, Beaumonte lead mules into the town - they were loaded with flour and bread and escorted by 200 lances. They entered the castle unnoticed. At dawn the next day, they noticed a body of cavalry approaching and thought they were reinforcements and so raised their cry. As the words "Beaumonte, Beaumonte!" were cried, the alarm was raised in the town.

Despite the confusion, Cesare leapt onto his horse dressed in light armour and rode out of the town with seventy horseman and his squire, Grasica. He left a note for King Jean to follow. Accounts of what happened during the next few hours conflict quite a lot, but it seems as Cesare galloped out of the Solana gate his horse slipped in the mud and almost fell. Cesare gained control of the horse and rode out of the town shouting:

"Where is he, this little Count?"

Cesare out rode his men, and caught sight of the Beaumonte soldiers as they were retreating to where Beaumonte waited for them. And Cesare Borgia, who had out ridden his men, did not realise he was alone. And as Beaumonte observed the lone horseman galloping forward with his unusual double pointed lance, he sent forward three of his best knights. These men included Garcia de Agreda and Pedro de Allo as well as some foot soldiers. These men waited in ambush, and as Cesare approached they fell upon him. As Cesare raised his arm to strike, Ximenes Garcia stabbed him with a lance under the arm, at the point unprotected by his armour.

Cesare fell from his horse, mortally wounded, yet he still had hold of his lance. He fought desperately, something that is shown fantastically in the Spanish movie "Los Borgia", but it wasn't long until he fell, completely overwhelmed by his attackers.

Cesare's death: Los Borgia

Cesare's death: Los Borgia

Cesare's death: Los Borgia

As he lay there, dead of his wounds, Cesare Borgia was stripped of his armour and left there naked and bleeding. One of the men, it is unknown which, had the decency to cover his genitals with a rock. Later, when his body was examined, at least twenty five stab wounds were found. It was just three days short of the Ides of March when he died, the day that had proven to be fateful to his hero Caesar. It seems that the men who attacked him were completely unaware that it was Cesare Borgia whom they had killed. Cesare's squire, Juanito grasica was found desperately searching for his master and when he was shown the armour that was taken, he burst into tears. It was at that moment that the attackers realised who they had killed. Beaumonte erupted in a rage. He had lost a valuable prize, for the price that was on the head of Duke Valentino alive was a high one. But nothing could be done, and so Beaumonte lead the squire to where Cesare's corpse lay. King Jean of Navarre had Cesare's body carried to Viana.

Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois and the Romagna; ex cardinal and son of Pope Alexander VI was buried in the parish church of Santa Maria in Viana. He was just thirty one when he was killed, and by the time of his death had achieved more than most men of his age ever had. He was buried in an elaborate marble tomb with the inscription:

"Here, in a scant piece of earth, lies he whom all the world feared"

It has since been suggested that Cesare deliberately rode out to his death in a sort of suicidal charge. Historians have previously argued that it was the syphilis that made him do this, that it had affected his brain so much that it made him go mad. However, Bradford has argued that by the time of his death it is more than likely that he was cured of the disease thanks to the malarial fever that he suffered in 1503. Plus, the final stages of syphilis can take up to 25 years to appear, and when he died in 1503 it would have been just 9 years since he first contracted the disease. There is also no evidence of madness in the lead up to his death. Had Cesare given up hope and ridden to his own death? It is unlikely for even under the bleakest of circumstances he had never lost hope. So why should he have done so now? Yet it is impossible now to arrive at the real reasoning behind his death - had he just gotten carried away and ridden out faster than his men, or had he indeed gone mad? Was he bored of being stuck in a little war which he believed meant nothing? Indeed, Cesare died alone - mostly as he lived. He had spent so many years fighting the odds and succeeding, and he may well have succeeded here - for he had a huge sense of his own destiny and of fortuna. He had such a lust for power and was prepared to sacrifice everything to succeed. Yet despite his single handed desire to succeed, and to rule, he failed. He was blessed with his desire to succeed, he was ruthless and in many ways amoral but in the same way he was also bordering on genius. And had he lived, he could have ruled the whole of Italy, if not the world.

There were not many who mourned Cesare's passing. The main few were the three women in his life: Charlotte D'Albret, Lucrezia Borgia and Vanozza Cattanei. Charlotte ended up spending the rest of her life in mourning, dressing in black and replacing the decorations of her home with black hangings. Lucrezia also sank into a massive mourning process - the two had been exceptionally close and been subject to horrific rumours that they had been lovers. His mother, Vanozza, also mourned him deeply. Cesare had always respected his mother greatly and after his death ended up contributing charitably to various religious institutions - so much so that Pope Leo X, Cesare's fellow student at the University of Pisa, demanded that his entire court attend her funeral.

Cesare's body was moved outside the church of Viana after the Bishop of Calahorra destroyed his tomb. His body remained under a pavement until 27 August 1945 when a grave was opened in front of the steps of the church. There, a human body was found - it was incomplete and mixed with the bones of a child as well as domestic animals. The body was lifted out and the bones examined. Experts deduced that the skeleton was of a man aged between twenty five and forty years of age, and had lain in its grave for at least two hundred years. The bones showed clear evidence of a wound at least two centimetres in diameter which had happened while the man was still alive. It was deduced that the skeleton did indeed belong to Cesare Borgia, the lance wound fitting to the stories of his death. Shoulder wounds were also found on the skeleton, which fitted to his fall from when he escaped La Mota. In 1953, the bones were reinterred inside the church in Viana with considerable ceremony, permission having been given for Cesare Borgia's reburial.

Cesare Borgia, if indeed the bones do belong to him, was reburied in front of the main door of the church of Santa Maria. Above his grave lies a simple slab reading "Cesar Borgia, Generalisimo of the Navarrese and Pontifical armies died in the fields of Viana 12 March 1507". There he lies to this day, his simple grave still able to be viewed by the curious tourist. Next to the church is a bronze bust of Cesare which stands in the middle of a little park next to the church in Viana.

Cesare Borgia died alone, just three short days before the death of his hero, Caesar. Yet he lived by his motto "Aut Caesar, Aut Nihil", and it really rings true in the lead up to his death. "Either Caesar, Or Nothing". Whilst many still believe Cesare Borgia to be the big, bad villain; if you study his life in depth he really wasn't the monster that many still make out. 

Rest in peace Cesare Borgia, duca de Valentinois é la Romagna. I shall raise a glass of wine to you this evening.

Further Reading

Sarah Bradford: Cesare Borgia - His Life & Times
Christopher Hibbert: The Borgias & Their Enemies
Paul Strathern: The Artist, The Philosopher & The Warrior
Sarah Bradford: Lucrezia Borgia
Mary Hollingswoth: The Borgias - History's Most Notorious Dynasty
↧
↧

Review: The Chalice by Nancy Bilyeau

March 19, 2013, 6:06 am
$
0
0

In the next novel from Nancy Bilyeau after her acclaimed debut The Crown, novice Joanna Stafford plunges into an even more dangerous conspiracy as she comes up against some of the most powerful men of her era. In 1538, England is in the midst of bloody power struggles between crown and cross that threaten to tear the country apart. Joanna Stafford has seen what lies inside the king’s torture rooms and risks imprisonment again, when she is caught up in a shadowy international plot targeting the King. As the power plays turn vicious, Joanna understands she may have to assume her role in a prophecy foretold by three different seers, each more omniscient than the last. Joanna realises the life of Henry VIII as well as the future of Christendom are in her hands—hands that must someday hold the chalice that lays at the centre of these deadly prophecies…

A while ago I read Bilyeau's debut novel "The Crown" and was hugely impressed, which was a bit of a big thing for someone who was suffering with Tudor Fatigue. So when I was approached to review her second book, I jumped at the chance. The Chalice follows on with Joanna Stafford's story, and is set during the torrid period of the Reformation.

I don't want to give too much away and spoil the story for people (because if there's one thing I myself don't like, it's spoilers!), but Joanna finds herself involved in yet more conspiracies to try and bring the True Faith back to England. It involves visits to famous seers - and I will mention just one name; Sister Elizabeth Barton - and yet again prophecy plays a huge role in the story. It really is a story full of both political and religious twists which prove for riveting reading. We see the return of characters we have both loved (Joanna Stafford, the monks and nuns of Dartford priory and everyone's favourite constable, Geoffrey) and hated (Gardiner) as well as many new faces including Catherine Howard!

As in The Crown, Bilyeau's writing style means that the story reads almost flawlessly. The narrative really makes the reader throw themselves into the story, and makes it so the book is really difficult to put down. I was really very impressed with Bilyeau's writing (As I was in The Crown), and honestly can't recommend this book highly enough. There is just one thing about the story that really niggled me though, and that was the constant mention of the Borgias and their poisoning technique - as it would do, considering as how that family are my specialism and I'm always found fighting their corner - it was really difficult for me to put myself in the situation that those in the sixteenth century would have been in. Anti-Borgia propaganda would have been prevalent back then, and the myths that the family were corrupt poisoners would have been rife. Still, every mention of their evil riled me up a little (a lot), but I can let it pass given how people would have thought back then (I know its a niggly point, but I can't help it).

All in all, an absolutely fantastic read and one I would wholeheartedly recommend! Please do check it out! I'll be looking out for her next book with interest!

The Chalice can be found on Amazon UK and Amazon US.

Please do follow Nancy on twitter, and also check out her website.



↧

Cesare Borgia's Sword Scabbard - And A Trip To The British Museum

March 23, 2013, 8:23 am
$
0
0
It's long been a dream of mine to look upon Cesare Borgia's sword and the scabbard that went with it. And when I found out that the scabbard was on display at the Victoria & Albert museum in London, I knew I had to go. Yesterday morning, after three and a half hours sleep, I got up and dragged myself and my partner off to London. Let me tell you now, wandering around London on just three and a half hours of sleep isn't a good idea, I was completely exhausted and could barely keep my eyes open. But then, when we got to the Victoria & Albert and saw the scabbard; everything was worth it.


When I saw it, I will admit that I squeaked rather loudly. I'd say it was embarrassing but really, I honestly didn't care. And it seemed to amuse the gallery attendant as I knelt in front of the case examining this beautiful artifact and wiped away my tears. Now I know you'll all think me incredibly sad but sitting in front of this beautiful piece of leather work made me really emotional - the thought that this had been made for Cesare Borgia, and that he had likely held it in his hands was just completely overwhelming. Some will wonder why I get so emotional over a man who had been so ruthless, but having studied him and his family for so long I have the utmost respect for the man who was so ruthless that he took over the whole of the Romagna with ease, yet loved his family more than life itself (But not in THAT way!). And seeing it there, something that was his, something that belonged to a man who I have found interesting for so long and read so much about, it was just simply amazing.

The scabbard itself is beautifully decorated:


Image from the Victoria & Albert Museum

On the front there are a number of images. At the top you can see a triumphal arch, under which a group of worshippers sacrifice a ram to either Venus or the Goddess of Peace. At the top of the Triumphal Arch there is an inscription in Latin: "Materium Superabit Opus" which means "Toil will tame the material" - a motto which really fits Cesare, the man who overtook the Romagna with ease, and tamed the people of each city he took over by being both ruthless and fair (Read The Prince by Machiavelli to understand exactly how this worked with Cesare). Beneath this you can see an Imperial Eagle, flanked with scrolls. This points back to Cesare's respect and love for his namesake Caesar (Julius Caesar). The Imperial decoration continues and you can see where it was marked out however this was unfinished. On the reverse, not easily seen in the museum, there are the monograms of Caesar as well as groups of three flames which was the personal impressa of Cesare. There is also a damaged coat of arms (very likely the Borgia coat of arms) flanked by cupids and the Goddess of Peace. 


Image from the Victoria & Albert Museum

The symbolism on the scabbard blew me away. Each image would have been placed there to reflect the mindset of its owner, that mindset being of the ruthless Cesare Borgia. I was completely stunned by the amount of Imperial imagery on the sword, reflecting the personal motto of Cesare; "Aut Caesar, Aut Nihil" - he had the utmost respect for Julius Caesar, and it seems almost hero worshipped him; from all my readings on Cesare it really seems as though he aspired to the same level of brilliance as Caesar.

I wish I could have spent more time with the scabbard, examining it in detail. Unfortunately, due to how fragile the piece is it would have been impossible to handle it (and I did ask when I emailed the museum a few months back). You can really see how fragile it is when you look at it, the back is split, as is the top, and this is likely why it was unfinished. During my research I found something interesting - after it was brought by the museum in 1869 it was described in a report to the Science and Art board as the "finest piece of art in leather ever known" and I can really see now how true that is. I don't think I've seen such a beautiful piece of leather work! Alas, due to what is likely a defect in the leather (the splits in the back) it never would have been worn by Cesare - had it been, it would have been a ceremonial scabbard. As he was a nobleman, Cesare would have worn a sword at most times (his sword, inscribed with his motto is currently in Rome), and such lavishly decorated scabbards would have been a usual sight in the noble courts of Rome. What's funny about this though is that the scabbard suits the shorter blade of the Cinquedea sword, which was a sword much more suited to combat - and indeed his sword is a short bladed Cinquedea. Is this Cesare once more showing the people that he's not a man to be messed with in any situation? It's certainly interesting to think about, I only wish that I could have found a little more information on this piece in the museum book shop. Alas, I could find nothing - I'll have to keep trawling online!




Looking a little emotional there...

After tearing myself away, ever so emotional, we decided to head to the British Museum for the afternoon. After a rather nice lunch in the little pub just opposite the museum we headed over there, and as we were walking in we spotted musician Gareth Malone! I think I might have scared him a little when I squeaked "It's that bloke from the telly!" - we didn't stop him, instead I stuck my head down and shuffled past embarrassed. Oops. 

Below are a few photos of my favourite pieces from the British Museum:


The Rosetta Stone - I spent a while stood here, explaining to my partner just how important this artifact is.




This beautiful statue of Venus once belonged to Sir Peter Lely (court painter of Charles II)


This isn't a very good picture, but this is basically a carved piece of Ivory dating to the thirteenth century. It shows images of the Passion, and Christ's crucifixion.




These are little reliquary boxes dating to the C13/14 - build to hold tiny relics such as sherd's of the True Cross, or a Holy Thorn.


The famous image of Christ from Hinton St Mary. Behind him you can see the Chi-Ro symbol, an early symbol of Christianity.


Ginger, the predynastic mummy. I love this guy, having spent a lot of time researching him at University. He's basically a natural mummy, the heat of the sand from his grave naturally dessicating his skin and giving him remarkable preservation.



Pieces from the Sutton Hoo ship burial.


Turquoise snake from the Aztec exhibition.

All in all, a fantastic day. And I might have spent a fortune in the B.M book shop. Oops!

Cesare's scabbard is currently on display in Room 62 of the Victoria & Albert Museum, South Kensington, London.
↧

And Now For Something Completely Different...

March 26, 2013, 5:22 am
$
0
0
It's taken me a while to get to this, due to various bits and pieces going on. I woke up this morning and found a comment from the lovely Anna Belfrage nominating me for a blogger award. This has put a massive smile on my face after a particularly difficult few weeks. The premise of the whole thing is to nominate inspiring blogs for the award, and answer a few questions about yourself in the process. Thank you for nominating me, Anna - here we go!



1. Display the logo on your blog. 
2. Link back to the person who nominated you. 
3. State 7 things about yourself. 
4. Nominate 15 other bloggers for the award. 
5. Notify your nominees.

I've done the first two, so on with the seven random facts.
  1. I have type 1 diabetes, and we're coming up to the 18th anniversary of my diagnoses.
  2. I really regret my decision to not carry on with history while I was doing my degree. In my first year I did a joint honours with archaeology but alas when it came to the second year, I decided to go for single honours archaeology.
  3. I am thus, a trained archaeologist. I've done loads of awesome digs both for research and commercial contract purposes - two Roman villas, a leper hospital, Tudor House in Southampton and a random building site - my commercial contracts were the best jobs I've ever had.
  4. I used to be in a rock band. We were truly awful, but playing in front of two packed auditoriums and a pub packed to the rafters was absolutely amazing!
  5. As well as the diabetes, I also have coeliac disease and diabetic nueropathy. Because of all this, I take enough tablets to make my stomach rattle!
  6. I adore wine and consider myself something of a connoisseur of the stuff. I completely blame my parents for this as they're wine nuts themselves (and that I blame on their impending move to Portugal where the wine is amazing, and super cheap!).
  7. I'm a tad obsessed with Monty Python, and can quote both Life of Brian and The Holy Grail almost word for word.
I'm now supposed to nominate 15 blogs who deserve this award. But if I'm honest every blog I read deserves it, as they're all inspirational in their own right. I would like to mention a few blogs that are my particular inspirations:
  • Three Pipe Problem - This blog is absolutely amazing, and all about the Renaissance and art history. Please do check it out as it's one of my favourite blogs out there!
  • Madame Guillotine - Does Melanie need any other introduction? She's just brilliant!
  • The frenetic fox - I consider Claire one of my best friends, and her blog is brilliant! Although not history related, it's certainly worth a read!
↧
↧

St Peter ~ Fact vs Faith

March 31, 2013, 8:40 am
$
0
0

St Peter as Pope by Rubens

Happy Easter everyone! I hope you're all having a lovely weekend and eating lots of chocolate. Given the theme of the day and my love of Papal history, I thought I'd do a piece on the supposed first Pope of Rome - St. Peter. Just a warning, given who he is this post will inevitably have to contain some very religious imagery and bible quotes - however it is my aim to provide a post that concentrates more on who he was, and the theories over both how he died, and whether or not he was actually in Rome. It should be said also that there are many more questions than answers when it comes to St Peter - however the theories that surround his life and death are incredibly fascinating.

Religious tradition dictates that Peter, or Simon as he was known before Jesus gave him the name of Peter, was one of Jesus' 12 apostles. He was the first apostle to be chosen by Jesus, and pretty much his best friend and right hand man. Tradition also tells us that Peter was a fisherman from Galilee and introduced to Jesus through his brother Andrew. According to Roman Catholic tradition, Peter ended up coming to Rome after the crucifixion of Jesus and founding the Catholic church that we know today - indeed there are portraits of him everywhere, and the seat of Christendom in Rome is even named after him. But why is this? 

Who was Peter? Did he really go to Rome? Was he the first Pope? 

So why does the Catholic faith consider Peter to be their first Pope? The answer is really very simple here - In the gospel of Matthew (XVI, 18-9), Jesus says to Peter:

"Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...I give unto thee the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"

These few words, inscribed around the top of St Peter's basilica in Rome, have been the subject of much debate over the centuries. When these words were uttered, Peter was not a name at all but the Aramaic word kephas translated into Greek as Petros - whick means rock or stone. However, there are differences between the gospels about whether this was uttered at all - Mark and John both mention it, however John's is mentioned much later, suggesting that it was added in at a much later date. Matthew is the only one who puts a particular reason into the words stated while the other gospels disagree about whether this actually happened or not. 

It seems then, that the tradition that the church was founded on a rock (aka Peter) is pretty unlikely. Or is it? Tradition (I'm mentioning this word a lot, but there are reasons for it) states that Peter founded the church and so the Popes we know today are an infinite line of his successors. 

In the New Testament, Peter becomes somewhat of an enigma after the death of Jesus. Indeed it mentions relatively little of either his fate or the fate of St Paul. Early tradition states that they were both in Rome when the Great Fire raged through the city in AD64. Following the fire, Nero wanted to find someone to blame, and so blamed the Christians - he was well known for his hatred and persecution of Christians, and is particularly famous for his special human candles. Tacitus tells us that after the great fire, Christian's were covered with animal skins and torn apart by dogs, nailed to crosses or set on fire. It is said that both Peter and Paul were killed during these persecutions but the Acts of the Apostles are really quiet on this subject. St Luke, who we know went with Paul to Rome, doesn't even mention Paul's martyrdom. Surely he would have done if they were working together? All Luke mentions, in the last few lines, is that he stayed in Rome for two years. Peter disappears from the story half way through chapter XII when we are told that he "departed, and went to another place". So if both Peter and Paul were martyred, why doesn't Luke mention it. Yet again, more questions than answers come out of this. 

So Peter and Rome, then. Peter certainly had good reason to go to Rome, having been given his mission to spread the word of Jesus to the Jews. At the time he would have been in Rome, the majority of the Roman church was made up of Jews with 30-40,000 Jewish people living in the city at the time. But yet again, there is no evidence that Peter even went to Rome in the New Testament. When Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in AD58, he didn't mention Peter at all and when, at the end he writes a list of names to who he's giving his greetings there's no mention of Peter. At all. So if he was in Rome, he can't have been there for very long. And those few years, if he was there, means that he wasn't there long enough to found the Roman Church which in any case has already existed for a good few years! As well as this, there is no contemporary reference to Peter being a bishop, or indeed of there being any bishop in Rome before the second century AD.


The Denial of St Peter by Caravaggio

What evidence is there though, that Peter was in Rome and met his fate at the hands of Nero's persecutors? The two most compelling pieces come from both Peter's own epistle, and a letter written by Clement (normally third or fourth in the list of Popes). In Peter's epistle, the penultimate verse states:

"She (the church) that is in Babylon...saluteth you."

But what does it mean? At the time, Babylon was a symbolic name for Rome and was used no less than four times in the Book of Revelation. The second piece of evidence comes from the letter written by Pope Clement in AD96 to the Church of Corinth. It seems that Clement knew Peter personally:

"Let us set before our eyes our good apostle Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due."

Whilst written in a very roundabout way, this points to the fact that Peter suffered; that he was martyred - it doesn't mention the way it happened. Was he crucified? That's certainly what tradition (there's that word again) states that he was crucified upside down due to believing he wasn't worthy to die in the same way as Jesus. Clement then goes on to mention Paul in almost the same breath, and mentions Paul's martyrdom (beheading) which suggests that they met a similar fate. Alas, we will never be certain of how this happened. All we can be sure of is that by the middle of the second century AD, it was accepted that both Peter and Paul had been martyred in Rome. There were even two sites connected with their martyrdom. The one we are interested in is Vatican Hill, where Peter was said to have been martyred.


The Liberation of St Peter by Honthorst

In around 320AD, Emperor Constantine built the first St Peter's basilica upon Vatican Hill. Why? He was determined to build it there, on the site of an open cemetery that was full of bodies and ancient catacombs. As the basilica was being built, these graves and necropolis were destroyed. And all because Constantine wanted to build over the site where he was sure St Peter's bones lay. There is evidence too that suggests he was right! This is a piece of contemporary evidence from about AD200 in which the Roman historian Eusebius (quoting a Roman priest by the name of Gaius):

"If you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, there you find the trophies (tropaia) of those who founded this church."

"Those who founded this church" is quite clear really, and it is the Vatican part of it we are interested in. We know Paul was executed on the Ostian Way so for the intents of this piece we can ignore it. The word tropaia refers to some sort of memorial to Peter that would have been visible on Vatican Hill. Excavations that took place after the Second World War at the Vatican actually found a two tiered three nieched construction known as an aedicula (normally used to hold sarcophagi), in front of which were earlier burials. This is actually incredibly significant. No sarcophagi were held in the aedicula so we have no way of knowing whether the burials were christian or pagan - what we do know is that bodies in Rome at that point were normally cremated, something which Christians did not do at the time. The aedicula held interred burials, human remains; in a corner of the cemetery which points to the fact it was an area of the cemetery reserved for those with different beliefs - probably Christians. There were also an unusually large number of votive coins found there, suggesting that this was a significant pilgrimage site. This is now believed to be the trophy mentioned by Gaius, and in the 1950's Pope Pius XII announced with confidence that this was the site of St Peter's burial. However there are some significant objections to this too:
  • Peter was an uneducated fisherman from Galilee - and special burial was saved for important prisoners. As a man, not a member of the gentry, his body would have been thrown into the Tiber along with the other common criminals. Thus his body would have been very difficult to get hold of.
  • If he did indeed meet his death during Nero's persecutions; given how Christians were executed at that time, his remains were even less likely to have survived.
So, does that mean this aedicula was more of a memorial than a mausoleum? Or were some of the human remains found actually the bones of Peter? And if so, was he buried there because of his work with Jesus even though he wasn't exactly highly sophisticated? If the remains did belong to Peter, then Matthew's testimony was correct - Peter really was a foundation stone of the church. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church believes it so wholeheartedly that they insist the line of Popes represent an uninterrupted line from St Peter even though, as we have already seen, Peter wasn't in Rome long enough to found the church and there's no evidence that says he was even a bishop.


The Crucifixion of St Peter by Caravaggio

It really is difficult to come to any sort of solid conclusions with the information that we have. We can be fairly certain that he went to Rome and that he was probably martyred upon Vatican Hill and buried there somewhere. It can also be concluded that the site of his burial was marked by the shrine that grew into the massively lavish basilica that we know today. We can also be certain that Peter did not found the Roman church and nor could he have possibly been a bishop - at least in the sense that we think of the bishop of Rome today. Given the evidence, Peter seems to have been in Rome for a very short time before his execution. It seems too that the reason the Church calls him the first Pope is when, in the second century AD the Roman church took primacy over the rest of the other churches, it looked for justification for its position of the head church. And sitting right there was Matthew XVI, 18 stating that Peter would be the rock upon which the church was built. And the church never looked back.

Peter himself seems to have lead an interesting life. It can be deduced from the gospels that he wasn't exactly hugely sure of himself, and he was rather inclined for violence, being the one who cut the ear off a guard during the arrest of his Master. It's also recorded that he often rowed with his fellow apostles. His denial of his Master could have been the end of his career, and even after this he remained unsure of himself. However, Peter was the main apostle, one of the first that Jesus chose and he was even the acknowledged leader of the disciples. His name is indeed always mentioned first out of all the group. He doesn't seem to have been hugely educated, no more educated than his colleagues and it is said that he had great difficulty in learning Greek later on in his life. He began his life as a simple fisherman from Galilee and was chosen by one of the most charismatic men history has ever known (Son of God or not, Jesus of Nazareth would have been an astonishing teacher ~ and it's generally accepted these days by historians that he did exist). It was Peter who first took Christianity to the gentiles, baptising them without forcing them to convert to Judaism. He was also imprisoned by Herod, although this was never properly explained. After he escaped, he left leadership of the church to James and took his mission to Asia Minor, ending up in Rome at some stage between AD60-65, where he is said to have been martyred by being executed upside down upon Vatican Hill. Why upside down? He didn't believe himself worthy to die in the same way as his Master. 

I'm not religious in the slightest, however I find the life of St Peter hugely fascinating. Whilst the theories over his life and death give more questions than answers, it's so interesting to compare fact and faith. Peter seems to have been an incredibly charismatic man, a man who was unsure of himself and lacked self belief, yet he overcame it and did great things for a man he considered his best friend. That best friend being Jesus, who whether he was the Son of God and a miracle worker or not, was one of the most charismatic teachers of his time. I didn't write this blog to spark religious debate, but I hope I've at least gone into some of the theories over St Peter's life and his death and I hope you find it as interesting as I do.

Further Reading



↧

The Borgias - Season 3, Episode 1: The Face of Death

April 15, 2013, 3:44 am
$
0
0
Caterina Sforza - Gina McKee

I'm going to be honest here and say then when I heard what the plans were for The Borgias, Season 3; I was a little loathe to even start watching it. And I'm still loathe to carry on watching the series. However, I have watched both the first and second seasons and, if I must admit it, enjoyed them immensely despite their ah...not so historically accurate storylines. Now then, the creator of the show, Neil Jordan, has said throughout that he wouldn't go down the incest route. But then the promotional videos game out showing the whole "Only a Borgia can love a Borgia" and "It's a game of want, and wanting" thing; and the Cesare/Lucrezia shippers went nuts and it seems that Jordan had decided to cater to the rumours that have been fed down to us throughout the centuries. I have to say, I was a little disappointed in this, and it really put me off the idea of watching the new season. But then I thought, "hang on a minute, why don't I review them so I can do a little mythbusting?" And so here we are, the first episode has aired, and here I am to share with you all a little review. I'm going to try my best to be as balanced as possible, and I'll try my best not to get ranty. If I get ranty, I apologise.

The first episode, aptly named "The Face of Death", picks up where season 2 left off. I'm going to try my best not to spoil the episode for everyone, but obviously given how one must review the content of the episode...that might be a little difficult. At the end of Season 2, Giuliano della Rovere had organised for Pope Alexander VI to be poisoned and the tasting boy (and agent of Rovere's) managed to succeed in getting cantarella in the Pope's wine. Of course, being the taster the boy drank from the wine himself and died a horrifically painful death while the Pope started spitting blood and passed out. Now thinking that the Pope is on his deathbed, the entire consistory gathers around his deathbed. They begin to scheme over who will replace him, Della Rovere being the usual sneaky piece of work. Alas, when Cesare realises that it was Dela Rovere who engineered the plot; poor Della Roverre realises that actually he'd be better off siding with the Borgia family. Now enemies begin to surround the Borgia family and Cesare must do his best to protect his family from those, like Caterina Sforza and her assassin Rufio, who want both the papacy and the lives of them all.

The cardinals gather, just incase the Pope decides to pop his clogs.

Cesare tries to attack Dela Roverre

Regarding the historical accuracy of this episode - there was absolutely no accuracy to this at all. Whilst the Borgias had many enemies and doubtless would have dealt with many plots, Dela Roverre never conspired to poison the Pope and indeed the Pope was never poisoned with cantarella. Caterina Sforza also never sent  her assassins into the house of Vanozza Cattanei; the only assassination attempt she made towards the Pope was actually by sending letters that had been left to fester next to the body of a plague victim! Regarding Dela Roverre, he was always plotting for one way or another to get his hands on St Peter's chair but more often than not he'd run away from Rome at the first sign of trouble. He certainly wasn't taken into custody in such a way, nor did he escape in such a way only to run into Cesare's blade. I honestly wonder where the scriptwriters got half of these ideas because so many of them are just so unlikely it's laughable. Of course as the series goes on, I'm sure there will be many more points I can make about the accuracy of such plot points. And I'm sure you'll all be treated to a bit of a rant when the incest storyline gains a foothold. But we shall cross that bride when we come to it.

In any case, there are a few good points to the episode as well. As always, and as has been proven in previous series', the acting is top notch from the cast. Stand outs for me so far are Francois Arnaud, Holliday Grainger and Colm Feore. With Arnaud's Cesare you can really get a sense of how Cesare has grown - in the previous scene we see him as a cleric determined to be rid of his robes, and giving into the darkness of his soul. In this first episode we can really see how dark he is beginning to become, how important family is and how much he loathes the idea of religion. Grainger seems to have also really grown into her role as Lucrezia although I am sure we will be able to gain further ideas of this as the series goes on. And with Feore, you can really see how Cardinal Dela Rovere will grow to become the infamous Papa Terrible. Yet again the costumes and set designs are amazing, and the cinematography is second to none. Whilst I may dislike the lack of accuracy in the scriptwriting, I can't deny that the rest of the production is always stunning to look at.

Lucrezia

Arnaud is rather good at making Cesare look broody

Cesare and Pope "Irons" Alexander

Cesare and Dela Roverre face off outside St. Peter's.

So what do I think so far? Not massively impressed but that may have something to do with the fact that I really have something against how a drama can be called "historical" if the only historical element is the name of a famous Renaissance family and the rest of the plot is so loosely connected to said family that it can't really be called historical at all. We'll see how the rest of the series goes but if I'm honest I'm not holding out much hope, especially when one of the main storylines is being said to be the incestuous relationship between Cesare and Lucrezia. As I said, we'll see how it goes. I can only hope that the other storylines get less ridiculous as the series goes on and that the acting and cinematography retains it's already excellent reputation. All in all, not as bad as I thought but still enough to make me disappointed enough not to watch the rest of the series.

↧

Review: Da Vinci's Demons Episode 1 ~ The Hanged Man

April 16, 2013, 9:30 am
$
0
0

Having long been a fan of Leonardo Da Vinci (sometimes bordering on fangirlism - I'm not sorry for it), I may have gotten a little excited when I heard that Starz were doing a series on the great man himself. Part of me was a little worried that they would tear the history apart, but having watched episode 1 I have to say that I was more than pleasantly surprised. In fact, as I watched, I was somewhat in awe. It must be noted in the first instance, however, that the series is a work of historical fantasy. It isn't a historical documentary, and there are many (I counted myself among them not so long ago) that would switch off within the first five minutes for reasons I will come to shortly. However if you watch the show with a grain of salt, and don't expect a great degree of accuracy then I hope you will all find it as enjoyable as I did. As is the same with such historical dramas as The Borgias, I can only hope that newcomers to the period are inspired to pick up books to learn the real history of the period and enjoy the show for precisely what it is - a fun historical drama.


Tom Riley as Leonardo Da Vinci


Leonardo, being brilliant as always (with Eros Vlahos as Nico in the background)

The show itself stars Tom Riley as a young Leonardo Da Vinci. Those of us who are somewhat akin to the history of Da Vinci are familiar with the ageing bearded self portrait; however the show shows Da Vinci as a young man. Given the events at the start of the episode, we can date the first episode to around 1475/6 or so, just after Da Vinci was made a maestro (master) of art. We also see him working within the studio of Verrochio, whom he continued working with even after he was made a maestro within his own right. As I watched, I found Riley's performance absolutely captivating and honestly could think of no one better for the role of a young Leonardo Da Vinci. Alongside Riley's Da Vinci we also have Blake Ritson as the infamous Giralomo Riario (later the husband of Caterina Sforza, and whose actor recently starred in "World Without End"); Elliot Cowan as Lorenzo De Medici and Gregg Chillin (of Being Human fame) as Zoroaster. Alongside such names we also have the brilliant Nick Dunning who played Thomas Boleyn in The Tudors. Given such a wonderful cast, is it any wonder that one is drawn in from the get go?

I did notice a few historical inaccuracies as I was watching. And normally I'd be all over that sort of thing given my interest in the period, but given how much I enjoyed the show I've managed to overlook most of them. At any rate, I feel like I should briefly go over the inaccuracies that I spotted. I shall do them in bullet point form, so I don't go on for paragraphs:
  • The showing of the dome of St Peter's basilica. This wasn't started until around 1505 when Julius II was Pope. At the time of the first episode (1475/6), it was still old St Peter's that was standing - complete with the famous pine cone sculpture out the front. This may be an issue with those not knowing the history of Rome and expecting to see St Peters as we know it today, so I can excuse this.
  • The courtyard of the Medici palace is much more fancy than it actually is in real life. You can see in the show a very exaggerated octagonal shaped courtyard when in fact the court yard is much simpler.
  • The characterisation of Lucrezia Donati as a secret agent of a Vatican pact is ever so slightly over exaggerated and probably somewhat jarring to those who specialise in the history of women of the period. I myself wasn't too bothered with this, given that it seems to be a very important plot point and it looks like the whole thing will get very very interesting as the series goes on.

All in all however, the series looks incredibly promising. The fantasy aspect of the show looks to be incredibly interesting, combining ancient Roman history (the Mithraic cult) and Renaissance history; as well as building on the growing genius of Leonardo Da Vinci. The sets are, quite frankly, stunning; and the acting has proven to be top notch.

High points so far: Leonardo Da Vinci's sass, Zoroaster and his drunkenness and the creepy Turk.

Very much looking forward to the next episode. I highly recommend checking this show out!
↧
Search

Review: Da Vinci's Demons Episode 2 ~ The Serpent

April 20, 2013, 8:04 am
$
0
0

This morning I sat myself down to watch episode 2 of Da Vinci's Demons, a feeling of excitement brewing in me. Last week's episode was thoroughly enjoyable, so I couldn't wait to get my teeth into this one. As I mentioned in my previous review, Da Vinci's Demons is a historical fantasy based around the life of a young Leonardo Da Vinci - it blends a mixture of history and fantasy seamlessly, making the show a rip-roaring ride. Even if you're one of those who turns shows off at the merest hint of historical inaccuracy, I'd highly recommend you don't because you'll probably end up enjoying it just as much as I did. And in my very humble opinion, Da Vinci's Demons is, quite possibly, one of the best shows to come out this year!

We ended episode 1 with Leonardo having been given a commission by Lorenzo the Magnificent to built war machines as well as finding himself becoming embroiled in a rather enthralling mystery to find the mysterious "Book of Leaves". Episode 2 begins with Leonardo continuing that search. As actually happened in history, we see Leonardo (or rather, his friends Nico and Zoroaster) digging up a dead body. This body is the Jew who was hanged in the previous episode; Leonardo wanting his body after being told by the myserious Turk to begin his search with the "hanged man". In history, Leonardo was known for his er...graverobbing...as dissection of humans wasn't exactly legal during those times. So a nice though to see Nico and Zoroaster evading the guards to dig up the body for their maestro. We're then treated to a rather gruesome scene in which Leonardo dissects the body to find what he's looking for.

Leo cuts open dead people

Which of course, being brilliant, he does. It seems there's a lot more to the Jew than meets the eye. Of course, Leonardo has a lot more on his plate than interesting mysteries. Not only must he build war machines for Lorenzo, but he has a portrait to do of Lucrezia Donati to paint as well. Lucrezia, being the love interest and a bit of a snake in the grass, seems like she's going to prove a bit of a problem for Leonardo. But we'll see how it goes as the series continues. I have to say, regarding Leonardo's sexuality in the series, I have seen a lot of posts picking at the "change" to Leonardo's sexuality. We don't actually KNOW whether Leonardo was homosexual in history as so little is known about his personal life. Yes, he was locked up for sodomy according to some sources; however he also wrote in his notebooks "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions" - this likely suggests asexuality. Historians can argue for weeks over whether or not Da Vinci was actually gay or not; but within this show I really like this story arc. Besides, from what I've seen so far it doesn't actually make him out to be straight - if you look at the scene in episode 1 where the male model comes over and Leo says something along the lines of "he's nice to look at", I think that suggests bisexuality don't you? Anyway, I'm ranting when I should be reviewing... *gets back on topic*

Leo and Lucrezia

One of my favourite scenes in this episode was where he's first testing out his famous fan shaped musket. Let's just say that things go catastrophically wrong (despite Leo's smart mouth and his insistence that it'll all be fine), and Lorenzo gets rather irritated; giving Leonardo a week to get it fixed and working. 

Testing the musket


I really thought that Blake Ritson came into his own in this episode. Ritson stars as Girolamo Riario; nephew of Pope Sixtus IV. In history, Riario was a bit of a derp and not the nicest of men. In the show, Riario is positively evil and Riario shows this excellently. In fact, his performance is positively mind blowing. The cold, unfeeling looks that he gave Nico during a rather gruesome scene were so brilliantly done that I found myself hating the man. And that is a sign of bloody brilliant acting!


The Widows Tear, a rather nasty torture device


I was highly impressed with the acting once again in this episode. I honestly couldn't think of anyone better to play a young Leonardo; you can tell that he is really giving it his all and I have to say, as I'm watching I can really imagine that's how Leonardo would have been. The smart mouthed sass helps immensely too!

Being clever. Again.

Zoroaster is such a reprobate

Greg Chillin is another of my favourites from this episode. The character of Zoroaster just makes me laugh so much. He's just one of these characters who you instantly like; he's so full of sass and such a bad boy. He's bloody brilliant!



I was even more impressed with the cinematography and CGI elements of this episode than I was in the first. There is one very simple reason for this; and that can be seen in the screencap just above. This scene, involving a chase with the papal guards and Leo doing a very assassins creed moment with a makeshift lift, was absolutely mind blowing! I was staring at my screen in awe, and as the camera pans out you can really see the work that was put into the CGI.

I won't spoil the ending of the episode for you all. But let's just say it ends with a bang....

Lara Pulver as Clarice Orsini



Overall, another absolutely fantastic episode. I'll say it again, even if you're a historian with an eye for historical accuracy, I highly recommend this for it's mix of history and fantasy. Just as many of you will read historical fiction novels that blend history and fantasy, this does the same and it does it fantastically. Feeling sceptical? Give it a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised. I for one, will be watching this series with interest!

In the mean time, while you wait for Episode 3 please do check out the following:

Tom Riley on twitter - @thisistomriley
DaVincisWriters on twitter - @DaVinciWriters
Da Vinci's Demons on twitter - @DaVincis_Starz

↧
↧

Review: The Borgias ~ Siblings ~ And A Bit Of MythBusting

May 1, 2013, 4:10 pm
$
0
0
It seems that after Showtime aired the third episode of The Borgias Season 3 that this blog has had quite a few hits searching for things like "were the Borgias really incestuous?" and even odder requests searching for members of the Borgia family without any clothes on. Considering as how the searches brought people to older mythbusting posts; I thought I would take the opportunity to do another one. And thus, I shall be killing two birds with one stone today ~ a review of 3 x 03, and a Borgia mythbust! I must apologise for my lack of a review for 3 x 02; we can blame Da Vinci's Demon's for that one. However, enjoy!

Rumours have filtered down to us throughout the centuries that the Borgia family enjoyed a closer than close relationship. Anti Borgia propaganda has told us that Pope Alexander VI enjoyed incestuous relations with his daughter Lucrezia; but the rumour that has stuck is the one that Cesare Borgia was involved with his own sister. We even have tales that the famous Infans Romanus was actually the child of Cesare and Lucrezia as well as a whole heap of secret bulls stating that the father of the child is Cesare's and in another bull that it's Pope Alexander's. This episode belongs to a post entirely of its own and so I shan't go into it here in too much detail. The important thing to take from this is that the rumours stated that the child belonged to Cesare and Lucrezia. Did it? We don't know. Personally, I hold little store in the rumours and am more of the opinion that the child belonged to Cesare and an unknown woman. But again, this will be spoken about in more depth in a future post.

Holliday Grainger doing her best lion impression

"It seems only a Borgia, can truly love a Borgia"

The main origin of the incest myth is really rather simple. In 1493, Lucrezia married Giovanni Sforza - it was a marriage of politics, Pope Alexander VI believed that having the Sforza's as his allies would help him in his political endeavours and it was a way of thanking the Sforza family for their help in electing him as pope. However, Pope Alexander soon grew tired of the Borgia/Sforza alliance, it was doing nothing for him politically and he needed more powerful allies. Annulment proceedings began and of course, Giovanni Sforza refused. Lucrezia was sent to a convent, and it is said that Giovanni begged the Pope to have his wife returned to him. Alexander refused on the basis that the marriage had never been consummated. Sforza was asked whether this was true or not, and he of course replied that this was untrue; that he had known his wife an infinite number of times and that the only reason a divorce was on the cards was so the Pope could keep his daughter for himself. Add this onto how obviously close Lucrezia and her brother were; and the flames began to spread. 

There are stories throughout the Borgia history of how close Cesare and Lucrezia were. One of my personal favourites is when he rode to Ferrara when she was sick and sat talking to her, holding onto her foot. 

There are thousand other anecdotes I could quote from the smallest up to the moment of Cesare's death where Lucrezia locked herself in a room, crying out her brother's name. But again, this could take up a whole post on its own or even a series of posts (there's an idea!) and so that will have to wait. At any rate, I hope from a brief overview I have managed to put across that the whole "borgiacest" anomaly is based entirely on rumour with no substantial evidence to back it up. And indeed in all my years of researching the family, I have never read a credible report of any such rumours; just propaganda from anti-Borgia factions. Were the stories true? We will never know, not without being handed a hand written note from either Cesare or Lucrezia stating that this actually happened. And what's the likelihood of that? It is down to us as researchers and historians to draw our own conclusions...

Francois Arnaud making Cesare look all broody again.

These two are big fans are the sex eyes. Have been since season 1

And this is where I come onto the latest episode of The Borgias. This episode has been the talk of the "fandom" ever since it was announced that Neil Jordan was going down the incest route and I have to say, I really didn't want to watch it. I will say now though, that the actual incesty bit is very short and actually very well done, not seedy at all. That whole part of the storyline, whilst based on little more than rumour, actually ended up being very interesting and I felt ever so sorry for poor Alfonso D'Aragona. He discovers that his marriage into the Borgia family isn't going to go as well as was first planned, and after discovering Cesare's political manoeuvres already coming into play he abandons his new wife on their wedding night. Already finding that her love for her brother is getting more and more intense, she finds herself drawn to his chambers where the two of them spend the night together. Lucrezia echoes the words she spoke to him in the first season, "I shall never love a husband as I love you, Cesare", by telling him that for that night at least he will be her husband.  

........

Poor Lucrezia; she believes that everyone is out to get her. Then her brother comes in and snogs her face off.

Can I see why Jordan went down this route? Yes, I certainly can. It certainly makes for riveting viewing and a story arc that is quite frankly, rather mind blowing. Mix that in with stellar acting from the amazing cast, beautiful costumes and the most mind blowing sets I've ever seen; The Borgias is certainly one of the best shows on television at the moment. What I can't quite forgive however, despite the fact that this is a historical fantasy, is the complete mess that the script makes of the history. In the first episodes alone I counted more inaccuracies than I could shake a stick at; but when the incest angle was brought into play I honestly felt physically unwell. Neil Jordan always said that he would never go down that route because it wasn't a story about incest. But it seems he caved and went down the routes that the fans of the show wanted. What makes it worse as well is that there are those fans of the show who honestly believe that the history is true, and refuse to pick up a book because they believe everything that they have seen on The Borgias. I've lost count of the amount of snotty emails and comments I've had because the things I write on the family aren't what are on The Borgias. 

So therefore I must be lying...

It's my hope that the latest episode brings more people here so that they can find out a little bit of background to what the actual Borgia family were like and the history that inspired the show. Because if I'm honest the real history is much more juicy than what's shown on the series. At any rate, I shall keep watching Season 3 as I'm intrigued to see where they'll go with the story arc; and I'm always impressed by the dynamics of the actors. Is it worth a watch if you're new to the history of the Borgia family? Yes. But I'd recommend reading a good biography of the family first of all.

It's that broody face again

Caterina Sforza and Cesare Borgia. Enemies until the end.

Arnaud is a REALLY big fan of the smoldering broody look.

Having just been abandoned on her wedding night, Lucrezia makes her way towards her brother's chambers.

"You shall be my husband tonight, Cesare"


Further Reading

Sarah Bradford - Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy
Sarah Bradford - Cesare Borgia: His Life and Times
Christopher Hibbert - The Borgias and Their Enemies
Mary Hollingsworth - The Borgias: History's Most Notorious Dynasty
Paul Strathern - The Artist, The Philosopher and The Warrior
Raphael Sabatini - The Life of Cesare Borgia
↧

An Interview With Isolda Dychauk

May 3, 2013, 5:52 am
$
0
0
Today I am very excited to have the lovely Isolda Dychauk here on Loyalty Binds Me for a short interview about her role as Lucrezia Borgia in "Borgia: Faith & Fear". As I'm sure you're all aware, "Borgia" is my favourite adaptation of the history of the Borgia family; so having Isolda here today is really very exciting for me. I hope you all enjoy what Isolda has to say!

Isolda as Lucrezia in Borgia: Faith & Fear

First of all Isolda, thank you so much for agreeing to do to this interview for me, it’s an absolute honour to have you here. What was it that attracted you to the role of Lucrezia in Canal +’s “Borgia: Faith & Fear”? "
The are a lot of things I love about the interpretation of Lucrezia. First of all it is an incredible honor to breathe life into a character, who really existed  It also is a great challenge to create this amazing development from a little girl to a liberated, strong women."

Before you auditioned for the role, and even after you got the role and began to prepare, what were your initial thoughts on the historical character of Lucrezia Borgia?
"There are a lot of rumors about the Borgia family, especially Lucrezia. Most people think of her as the wife, which poisoned her husband or as the daughter, which slept with her father and her brother. Therefore in the beginning, I was trying to find some of the the 'good sides' of Lucrezia."


Isolda as Lucrezia and John Doman as Pope Alexander VI (screencap from Season 1)

How did you prepare to play Lucrezia? Are there any particular books that you would recommend?
"To be honest, I didn't read many books about the Borgias, partly because of all these rumors. For the first episodes my preparation has been the directions of Tom Fontana and Oliver Hirschbiegel."

There are many rumours that have come down to us about the Borgia family. The one that sticks in most people's minds is that there was a lot of incest going on between Lucrezia and the male members of her family. In the show we see these rumours taking shape - what are your thoughts on these rumours and do you think there was any truth in them?
"I certainly don't think all of them are true. The Borgia has been a powerful and successful family, with many enemies. Therefore many rumors has been created only for the sake of harming them. I believe Lucrezia and Cesare had a very close relationship, I am not sure about the incest, though." 

What particular moment of Borgia history particularly interests you?
"I don't have any particular moments which I find more interesting than others. After filming for 2 years I love more or less everything about this period of time. Even though I'm glad I don't have to struggle with the problems they had back then..."


Isolda (Lucrezia) and Mark Ryder (Cesare) - photo manipulation by me.

As I watch watching Season 1 of Borgia, I could tell just how close all of the cast were. What was it like working with such distinguished actors as Stanley Weber, Assumpta Serna and Marta Gastini?
"Working with this cast and crew has been a blessing. Each of them is wonderful in their own way. Marta and I are like sisters by now, I trust her with every thought I have, she has always the right words to help."

In history, Lucrezia was described as an innocent pawn in the politics of her family. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you bring this into your portrayal of her?
"Season 1 is focused on Lucrezia becoming a woman, therefore there was not much politics involved. In season 2, she becomes Governor of Spoleto, which is her first step into politics. It was a huge challenge for her but she trusted her intuition and made the right decisions."

If you could play any other character in history, who would you play and why?
"There are so many fascinating characters in history, I don't think I can focus on just one."


Promotional photo of Lucrezia in Season 2 of Borgia

Are there any other projects that you’re taking part in, that we can look forward to?
"There are a few films coming up, after we finish filming season 3, but it's not official yet."

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer these questions. I can’t wait to see Season 2!
"Thanks to you, it's been a pleasure."

Season 1 of "Borgia" is available to buy on Amazon, and Season 2 is now available to purchase from Amazon.fr (with English audio). Please do check them out!
↧

It Seems I Took An Impromtu Hiatus

June 26, 2013, 5:00 am
$
0
0
As it's been well over a month since I last updated here, I thought I should swing in and give you all a massive apology for my impromptu hiatus. There are many reasons why I haven't updated here and all of them relate to my personal life unfortunately.

At the end of the day a mix of writers block as well as recurring illness has kept me away from updating here, which is a massive pain. Due to being on new medication I've found myself sleeping more than being awake and in truth my concentration is often shot to pieces. As such, I haven't picked up a history book in well over a month, and have been spending my days reading poorly written fiction (and not historical either! Shock horror).

Whilst I am starting to feel a little more like myself, I'm not sure how much longer I will be "away" from here. I am planning on reviewing Season 2 of Borgia at some point, and that post is being worked on at a snails pace. Until then, please do find me over on the facebook page and on twitter.

Once again, my apologies and I'm hoping to be back here properly soon. In the meantime, have a pretty picture of Mark Ryder as Cesare Borgia...


↧

Remembering Mick Aston

June 29, 2013, 8:44 am
$
0
0
It was with a very heavy heart that I heard the news of Mick Aston's death the other day. As someone who grew up watching Time Team (don't judge me, I'm not ashamed), I will freely admit that it was the work of Mick and his team that made me want to get into archaeology in the first place.

I was lucky enough to meet Professor Mick Aston whilst I was studying archaeology at University. It was during a two week excavation at a Roman villa deep in the Somerset countryside that Mick Aston came up to the site for the day. I had a lovely chat with him, he signed my trowel and allowed me to have a photograph with him. Just FYI, I'd spent the better part of 2 weeks knee deep in mud, living in a tent and getting drunk on a nightly basis...


Professor Aston really helped bring archaeology to the masses, and many households would sit down on a Sunday afternoon to watch the team conduct an archaeological excavation within three days. Whilst some of the methods have been questioned by archaeologists, you can't fault them for making archaeology more popular with the public. Mick Aston was one of a kind, a very friendly man who really knew his stuff and someone who has always had my respect.

Rest in Peace, Mick Aston. You will be sorely missed.
↧
↧

[Review] Borgia: Faith & Fear ~ Season 2 Episode 1: "The Time Of Sweet Desires"

July 30, 2013, 3:05 pm
$
0
0

I'm sure you will all remember my review of Borgia: Faith & Fear's first season and that I was rather impressed with it. I found it much more riveting, and much more accurate than the equivalent Showtime series "The Borgias". And so when I had the second season of Borgia arrive through my door back in April, I couldn't help my excitement. I probably should have reviewed them all sooner, but I'm getting a bit lax with updating this blog. So, given that I have two weeks off work, I thought I would rewatch Season 2 of Borgia and do a daily (except tomorrow because it's my birthday) review of the episodes.

The first episode, named "The Time of Sweet Desires" is set in 1494. Right at the very beginning we see an event that actually happened in history (although at the moment I am unable to find an actual date, I will work on that). We see Rome in the middle of a huge storm, and a bolt of lightning strikes the statue of Michael the Archangel and it explodes into pieces. It was seen as a bad omen, pointing towards the overthrow of the Papacy of Pope Alexander VI (John Doman in this series). As the storm rages we see Pope Alexander VI praying before the alter in St Peter's basilica. As he does so he is approached by two individuals. As he turns he sees that the men are his sons Juan and Pedro-Luis. They accuse him of besmirching the name of Borgia, that he is bringing the papacy to its knees. Rodrigo ends up stabbing his sons, only to be stopped by his friend and manservant Gacet. As Rodrigo comes to his senses he sees that the two men were in fact travelling monks, and he leaves the basilica with a scream. Later on we see that he has been affected by "melancholia" or depression, which has been making him hallucinate, and he ends up being given a concoction by the name of "vitriola" which will apparently cure him. The importance of this is seen much later in the series.


This episode is set 8 months after the end of the last season, and Cesare is in the Kingdom of Naples trying to avoid being sent to Valencia and to win the heart of Carlotta D'Aragona. This is another part of Cesare's story which is true to the history. Cesare became obsessed with Carlotta and believed himself to be truly in love with her. Yet she spurned him. Even in the first episode we can see the obsession that Cesare has built up over this woman, and the jealousy that he faces over the man she is in love with Guy de Leval. Our first sight of Cesare is in a room with a lady by the name of Maria Diaz Garlon (known here as Contessa). Three guesses what they were up to...


Just when things are about to get incredibly steamy, Cesare's eyes fall upon a map of the Romagna. He picks the map up, saying that he is a poor imitation of his dead brother Juan (don't make me laugh, Cesare!) and that he wants to be King of Italy, that he doesn't simply want to be Cesare Borgia now...he wants to be Caesar! This is a nice throw forward to the motto that Cesare will eventually take for himself: "Aut Caesar, Aut Nihil" - "Either Caesar, Or Nothing". As he is studying his maps, he is burst in on by the Prince of Naples and told he is wanted at mass.

The Mass scene has to be one of my favourites in the entire episode. This is one of the first times we see Cesare's full out atheism come to the fore. The Mass is to celebrate the feast of St Valentinus, and as Cardinal Caraffa is telling the congregation the story Cesare begins to make snarky comments about how we don't even know if this Saint existed, and how the Christian church actually stole the Saints day from the Pagans, that it was originally a Pagan fertility festival and an "excuse for fucking". He then leaves the service in a huff, leaving a shocked silence behind him. In history, Cesare was the biggest atheist you could ever meet, despite growing up within the Catholic Church. And as he grows throughout the series we will see him come to believe more in the Goddess Fortuna, rather than any Christian God.

Not a screencap from Episode 1, I just felt like putting it in...

In the meantime, Lucrezia Borgia is holed up in Rome. She is heavily pregnant with the child of Perotto (the guy who was stabbed by Cesare at the end of Season One), grieving for Perotto and dealing with the guilt of killing her own brother. She refuses to let anyone in her room, even her own mother. When Vanozza de Cattanei can't even get Lucrezia to open the door she seeks out the help of the famous poet and musician Pietro Bembo (after randomly meeting him when she goes to see her grandson)


Well, Bembo does the trick. After being a creeper and playing his lute outside of her window, she invites him over and they begin a very strange friendship. Lucrezia seems to fall head over heels in love with him from the start, and asks him for a kiss. He refuses, saying they are better off with a platonic sort of love. Yet before he leaves, they spend their time playing music together and she grows to trust him; even going so far as to show him the daggers that were used to kill Juan. This bit of the story is way off the historical record however. Lucrezia didn't meet Bembo until she was Duchess of Ferrara many years later. It seems as if Fontana may have been struggling with ideas for Lucrezia's storyline and so pushed Bembo's part in the story forward. However, as with everything Fontana does, it really works. 

Bembo & Lucrezia

Another rather excellent story arc I found within the first episode was how the consistory was trying to make use of Pope Alexander's weakness. They all seemed to have an ultimate agenda so that they would be the power behind the papal chair, and Alexander would be a puppet Pope. Ultimately it is Giuliano della Roverre and Cardinal Riario Sansoni who are the ones heading the plot to try and find the dirty secrets behind Gacet. They end up convincing young Alessandro Farnese to help them, but in the end Farnese's loyalty to the Borgia wins him over particularly after he is given a sword lesson from General De Cordova and told that in the end, loyalty should win above all. One of the main aims of both the conspiring Cardinals AND Pope Alexander is to get De Cordova and his Spanish troops out of Rome. The Pope comes up with a very interesting approach to this, saying that he had a dream in which a lion was eaten by a green camel, yet de Cordova slew the camel and saved the lion. Farnese interprets the dream as the Turks attacking Venice (which is precisely what the Turks are planning to do) and de Cordova immediately leaves Rome with his troops. Mission accomplished for both sides. Yet the cardinals are irritated that Farnese took part in the "fine piece of theatre". 

Of course the majority of this episode circulates around Cesare in Naples. I particularly enjoyed the jealousy and hatred between him and Guy de Leval over Carlotta. Indeed it gets so bad that Cesare pulls Leval into a very clever trap, talking him into a bullfight. Of course, as a native Spaniard, Cesare was brilliant at bullfighting and never lost a fight. Leval willingly walks into it, ending up with Carlotta trying desperately to call the whole thing up, saying that if Cesare really loved her then he would back out even if it meant embarrassment for him.



Cesare & Carlotta

One of the final scenes in this episode is Cesare practising for said bullfight. After successfully stabbing the fake bull in the side, Leval appears and begins to taunt Cesare. He has heard that Cesare has withdrawn from the fight. Cesare mentions that yes, he has withdrawn for personal reasons. And Leval begins to taunt him even more, calling him a coward and half a man. Cesare warns; "careful monsieur, I have killed men for saying less". Yet Leval keeps on and we see our very first glimpse of the man who will become the famous Valentino. He proceeds to beat Leval to a bloody pulp before tearing the head from the fake bull and stabbing Leval with one of the horns. The icing on the cake is when Cesare takes hold of Leval's arm and twisting it so hard you hear the bone snap. 


I have to say I was highly impressed with the first episode of Season 2. They have really stepped up their game after Season 1, and you can tell that the cast have really grown into their roles. Stand out performances from Mark Ryder as Cesare Borgia and Diarmuid Noyes as Alessandro Farnese, although of course the entire cast did a marvellous job! Here's to episode 2!

↧

A Birthday Wish From Cesare Borgia

July 31, 2013, 10:59 am
$
0
0
You will all know by now just how much I respect Cesare Borgia, and how much time I spend reading and researching the man. For a very long time I have wanted his personal motto "Aut Caesar, Aut Nihil" done as a tattoo, and today I finally had it done. We'll call it a birthday present to myself, because today is the day I turn 25 years old!


I am so pleased with it it's unreal! My own personal way of showing just how much I respect Cesare Borgia. Awesome! Now, I'm off to eat Chinese and drink birthday wine. Expect another Borgia review tomorrow (if I'm not too hungover).

↧
Search

[Review] Borgia Faith & Fear - Episode 2: Ash Wednesday

August 2, 2013, 2:51 pm
$
0
0

I'm going to keep today's review short and sweet, given that I'm exhausted and feeling somewhat worn down. Episode 2 of Borgia's second season is named "Ash Wednesday" and based around the symbolism of Ash Wednesday. For those not entirely sure of what Ash Wednesday actually is, it is the first day of Lent and the name itself comes from the practise of placing an ash cross shape upon the forehead of the worshipper in a gesture of moaning and repentance to God. This is shown very clearly at the beginning of the show when Cesare is taking mass. He places ash crosses upon the congregation's forehead, except on Carlotta. He places an ash 'C' upon her forehead, and states it means "Christ". Come on Cesare, we all know you are marking her as your own.

We see Cesare continue his mission to get Carlotta. Of course it fails and Cesare angrily stomps off to see the wounded Guy de Leval in his bedchambers. Cesare offers him wine, which Guy refuses to drink thinking that the wine is poisoned. Of course Cesare loses his temper and tells Guy that he isn't worthy to drink his wine, and nor is he worthy of Carlotta. We also see yet more of Cesare's instability. When Sancia is told to seduce Cesare so he will marry her and be able to take the crown of Naples she goes to his rooms. Cesare then attacks her with a fire poker, branding her forehead with the sign of the cross. This scene is particularly shocking as you see the range of emotions in Cesare's eyes only for them to disappear and be replaced with a cold indifference.

We have another character introduced in this episode: Isabella Metuzzi. She arrives as Lucrezia is approaching the time for her child to be born. Isabella is brought in to try and convince Lucrezia that the best option would be for her to give her child over to Giulia Farnese. The reasoning behind this is so that Lucrezia isn't tainted with having a bastard child, and so she can move on and get married. Isabella is actually Lucrezia's half sister who has been shunned by Rodrigo for years - she says it is because Rodrigo disliked how she was unable to bare her husband children, that she was barren. We find out that this is a lie and that she has a son, but the only reason she told Lucrezia she was barren was to win the argument. Lucrezia is convinced, and as she gives birth to her child - a boy named Giovanni (the famous Infans Romanus who will get his very own post at some point) he is taken away from her straight away, leaving her completely hysterical.

This episode also deals with the attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church towards sodomy. We see a man publicly executed for the crime of sodomy, the Pope saying that as God punished the townspeople of Sodom for their crimes, so should they as sodomy is "the most grievous of sins". The man in question is then executed with something known in the show as "The Pope's Pear". This was an actual method of torture and execution used during the Renaissance and even before, and known as the Pear of Anguish...


The Pear was inserted up the offenders anus and opened. This would rupture the lower intestine and cause a very very slow and painful death. The execution scene in this episode using this device made me shudder, and even though you don't see much, you really get the idea of what was happening. You hear the man screaming, and the last shot is of blood dripping from his body. Nasty stuff. Following this we then see the cardinals sorting out the perfect way to get rid of Gacet. Gacet is accused of sodomy in front of the Pope and a large crowd. Gacet is arrested, but Bishop Flores (the man who accuses him) ends up digging himself into a hole and admitting that actually he lied about it. Gacet is freed, and Flores placed in prison in his stead. We then find out that actually Gacet is homosexual and has been having liaisons with Della Roverre. But we then find out that Gacet believes he is homosexual due to the thoughts he has been having, and Pope Alexander is all "oh well". 

One of the final scenes of this episode involves Cesare having it out with the King of Naples over the agreed marriage between Lucrezia and Alfonso, Duke of Calabria. Cesare states that only a prince is good enough for his sister and the episode ends with the King agreeing to make his nephew a Prince, and Cesare departing for Rome as well as a shot of Giulia Farnese looking upon a distant Castel Sant Angelo, vowing that she will never stray so far from Rome again.

Another top notch episode. Amazing sets, beautiful costumes and fantastic acting from the entire cast. Standout this episode has to be Mark Ryder for the sheer fact that we are slowly starting to see him unravel to the malicious Valentino that is so well known.

↧

[Looking Back] The Borgia Apartments, The Vatican

August 9, 2013, 3:28 am
$
0
0
Due to a bit of writers block I thought I would share a post I did a while ago, all about my trip to the Borgia apartments at the Vatican.

The Disputation of St Catherine - Pinturicchio

After Rodrigo Borgia became Pope in 1492, he planned a whole new set of rooms for his personal use. These rooms still exist today, and in them survive a fascinating insight into the Borgia mindset. The walls are covered in frescoes of the Borgia bull, and the entire set of apartments show the Spanish roots of the new Pope - the floor tiles were imported especially from Spain, giving the rooms a completely Spanish look, and mixed in with the frescoes of the Borgia bull are are representations of the Aragonese double crown, to which they added sun rays or flames mixed in a grazing bull.

The Borgia Bull, Borgia Apartments (picture by me)

The Borgia Bull and the Aragonese Crown, Borgia Apartments (picture by me)

Spanish Tiles, Borgia Apartments (picture by me)

Borgia Coat of Arms, Borgia Apartments (picture by me)

As can be seen from the pictures above, Pope Alexander made sure the family device was everywhere - gilded Borgia bulls on the ceiling in a repeated pattern with the Aragonese arms, Spanish tiles all over the floors as well as gilded stucco frames around the frescoes. The entire space was created to reflect the pride Alexander felt in his family name, pride at their Spanish origins and the huge ambition that he had for himself and his family.

Quite possibly, the most impressive monument to the Borgia family surviving in those set of rooms hidden away in the Vatican (and used to house a contemporary art gallery, I wasn't too impressed with that!) are the frescoes that surround the walls of the main room.

The Disputation of St Catherine, Pinturicchio (Picture by me)

After his election to the Chair of St Peter in 1492, Pope Alexander hired Bernadino di Betto di Biagio (better known as Pinturicchio) to paint his new apartments. Pinturicchio was an incredibly talented artist from Sienna, and one of the most sought after artists in his day and had even assisted in the painting of the Sistine Chapel. And whilst some weren't all that impressed with his works, the Pope certainly was.

The most famous fresco is the one shown above: The Disputation of St Catherine. And it is the biggest testament to the Borgia family in the room, simply because it contains images of the Borgia family. Most are dressed in the Turkish fashion whilst St Catherine (Said to be an image of Lucrezia, and I have to say I agree wholeheartedly) argues against the Pagan emperor. 

The entire image is full of imagery - in the centre stands a triumphal arch based on the Arch of Constantine and sat atop it is the Borgia bull. The arch of Constantine is an incredible monument to Christianity - the arch itself (still standing outside the Colosseum) was built as a celebration of Constantine's victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. In essence, it's place in the painting is saying that the Borgia family are as important to Christianity as Constantine was - reinforced by the Borgia bull sat right on top of said arch. And not only are members of Alexander's family depicted (Lucrezia, Cesare, Juan, Joffre and Sancia) but also other members of the papal entourage and it is said, though I haven't yet found a source for this and will update as and when I do, that the man sat in the chair is actually a self portrait of Pinturicchio himself.

As for the imagery of the family, the main figure in the painting is St Catherine. She is portrayed as blonde, the known hair colour of Lucrezia Borgia, and this image has long been traditionally held as an image of Lucrezia although there is, of course, no certainty of this.

Detail of St Catherine showing the supposed figures of Lucrezia and Cesare (Picture by me)

The figure behind her, dressed in Turkish robes and glaring out, is said to be an image of Cesare Borgia while the figure on the left hand side (the right as we look at it) is traditionally held to be an image of Juan Borgia, second Duke of Gandia.

Detail of the figure said to be Juan Borgia in The Disputation of St Catherine

The two diminutive figures at the front of the painting are said to be of Joffre Borgia and his wife, Sancia of Aragon.

Figures said to be of Jofre Borgia and Sancia of Aragon from The Disputation of St Catherine

Pope Alexander himself is not shown in the Disputation of St Catherine. He is however shown in the fresco "Resurrection", in which he witnesses the Resurrection of Christ during a moment of prayer. He has his hands clasped in prayer, dressed in embroidered robes and his papal tiara on the floor before him. Pinturicchio also painted another portrait of Alexander above a doorway adoring a beautiful virgin who, according to Vasari was given the face of Giulia Farnese. This portrait however was destroyed when the room it was in, was destroyed for other building works.

The Resurrection by Pinturicchio

Detail of Pope Alexander VI, Pinturicchio

In all then, the Borgia apartments are a testament to the sheer self belief of the Borgia family, their belief in unbridled power and the pride that Alexander felt in his family origins. 

And one last picture from my visit last year, though this could have been carved at an point throughout the room's history - a gaming board carved into a windowsill which I found to be incredibly interesting. I have no idea how the game was played but it certainly looks interesting!

Random gaming board in the Borgia Apartments (Picture by me)

Further reading

Mary Hollingsworth - The Borgias: Histoy's Most Notorious Dynasty
Christopher Hibbert - The Borgias and Their Enemies
Sarah Bradford - Cesare Borgia: His Life & Times
Sarah Bradford - Lucrezia Borgia
↧
↧

[Looking Back] An Interview With Isolda Dychauk

August 13, 2013, 7:00 am
$
0
0
Looking back again today. Not long ago, the lovely Isolda Dychauk did an interview with me about her role in the second season of Borgia: Faith & Fear. Here is is again!

Isolda as Lucrezia in Borgia: Faith & Fear

First of all Isolda, thank you so much for agreeing to do to this interview for me, it’s an absolute honour to have you here. What was it that attracted you to the role of Lucrezia in Canal +’s “Borgia: Faith & Fear”? "
The are a lot of things I love about the interpretation of Lucrezia. First of all it is an incredible honor to breathe life into a character, who really existed  It also is a great challenge to create this amazing development from a little girl to a liberated, strong women."

Before you auditioned for the role, and even after you got the role and began to prepare, what were your initial thoughts on the historical character of Lucrezia Borgia?
"There are a lot of rumors about the Borgia family, especially Lucrezia. Most people think of her as the wife, which poisoned her husband or as the daughter, which slept with her father and her brother. Therefore in the beginning, I was trying to find some of the the 'good sides' of Lucrezia."


Isolda as Lucrezia and John Doman as Pope Alexander VI (screencap from Season 1)

How did you prepare to play Lucrezia? Are there any particular books that you would recommend?
"To be honest, I didn't read many books about the Borgias, partly because of all these rumors. For the first episodes my preparation has been the directions of Tom Fontana and Oliver Hirschbiegel."

There are many rumours that have come down to us about the Borgia family. The one that sticks in most people's minds is that there was a lot of incest going on between Lucrezia and the male members of her family. In the show we see these rumours taking shape - what are your thoughts on these rumours and do you think there was any truth in them?
"I certainly don't think all of them are true. The Borgia has been a powerful and successful family, with many enemies. Therefore many rumors has been created only for the sake of harming them. I believe Lucrezia and Cesare had a very close relationship, I am not sure about the incest, though." 

What particular moment of Borgia history particularly interests you?
"I don't have any particular moments which I find more interesting than others. After filming for 2 years I love more or less everything about this period of time. Even though I'm glad I don't have to struggle with the problems they had back then..."


Isolda (Lucrezia) and Mark Ryder (Cesare) - photo manipulation by me.

As I watch watching Season 1 of Borgia, I could tell just how close all of the cast were. What was it like working with such distinguished actors as Stanley Weber, Assumpta Serna and Marta Gastini?
"Working with this cast and crew has been a blessing. Each of them is wonderful in their own way. Marta and I are like sisters by now, I trust her with every thought I have, she has always the right words to help."

In history, Lucrezia was described as an innocent pawn in the politics of her family. What are your thoughts on this, and how did you bring this into your portrayal of her?
"Season 1 is focused on Lucrezia becoming a woman, therefore there was not much politics involved. In season 2, she becomes Governor of Spoleto, which is her first step into politics. It was a huge challenge for her but she trusted her intuition and made the right decisions."

If you could play any other character in history, who would you play and why?
"There are so many fascinating characters in history, I don't think I can focus on just one."


Promotional photo of Lucrezia in Season 2 of Borgia

Are there any other projects that you’re taking part in, that we can look forward to?
"There are a few films coming up, after we finish filming season 3, but it's not official yet."

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer these questions. I can’t wait to see Season 2!
"Thanks to you, it's been a pleasure."

Season 1 of "Borgia" is available to buy on Amazon, and Season 2 is now available to purchase from Amazon.fr (with English audio). Please do check them out!
↧

ArtFund

August 28, 2013, 12:31 am
$
0
0

A very brief post this morning as I'm not feeling too well. But this post has been a long time coming. Earlier this year I was given a National Art Pass from ArtFund to use and review and I have to say, it's utterly fantastic! The pass itself allows you access to hundreds of historical sites, museums and art galleries across the UK at discounted prices. Benefits of this fantastic pass include 50% off many major exhibitions, special events such as lectures and private parties, a monthly magazine as well as access to an exclusive shop. And if you buy one of these passes you are also helping Art Fund to help museums and galleries across the country buy art to go on display.

It really is a fantastic little card and one I intend to make good use of! Especially since there are many museums included in the list of sites that accept this card around my area! And when I do eventually get to one of these places I shall be doing a little review here!

I would highly recommend getting yourself one of these passes here

For more information on the National Art Pass and ArtFund please do visit their website.
↧

Borgia vs The Borgias - The Characters of Cesare, Lucrezia, Rodrigo and Giulia

September 8, 2013, 10:54 am
$
0
0

When asked about TV shows on the Borgia family, at least 95% of those you ask will automatically mention "The Borgias" by Showtime. If you tell them there is another show, made by the French production company Canal +, many will not know what you are talking about and the rest will rant about how it's an awful show because "it's not the Borgias". Now then, many of you will know that I adore the Canal + show and really despise the Showtime version (looks like I go against popular opinion there) and I thought I would do a little comparison of the shows today.

Cesare Borgia


There are positives and negatives for both Francois Arnaud and Mark Ryder as Cesare to be honest. In The Borgias, you have Arnaud as Cesare Borgia who you see starting out as a priest who just hates what he is and wants power from the get go. In Borgia, Ryder portrays Cesare as a young man who is physically torn between his work in the church and his need for power. He is not immediately shown as a psychotic killer, far from it. Indeed the very first scene we see him in is him kneeling before a crucifix at the Sapienza in Pisa whipping himself for his sins against God. As he does so, he has flashbacks to the reasons behind his need for punishment, when he beat seven shades of hell out of a man at his mothers bar before making out with his woman. Compare this to The Borgias, when from the get go we see a Cesare Borgia who is obsessed with power and sword play and an inherent hate of his clerical robes. 

As the seasons go on we obviously see a dramatic change in both characters. In The Borgias, Cesare is shown as becoming more and more ruthless yet his softer side shows through when he developes a massive interest in his own sister (more on that later), as well as his marriage to Charlotte D'Albret. Yet he still has that obsession with power. I have to say that I hated the development of Cesare within this show, it just really didn't come across to me as what Cesare would have been like in history. In Borgia, you see Cesare's mental instability taking hold. He discards his cardinal's robes after the death of his brother and you see him become this ruthless warlord, obsessed with taking the Romagna, obsessed with showing that he is the most powerful soldier in Italy. Yet you see his mental instability show through as well, the way he treats his prisoners for example after the scenes in Milan when he keeps both Ludovico Sforza and Cardinal Sforza in a tiny cage on the floor, the way he shoves food down a guys neck until he is literally choking just to get what he wants. But then you see his switch, how he can go home and switch back to his loving self around his family and the genuine smile upon his lips when he marries Charlotte. Personally in this regard I feel that Ryder's version of Cesare is the better one.

Looks wise - doesn't everything come down to looks? This is where I get shallow, please don't kill me. We know that Cesare was dark. He had dark hair tinged with red (thanks to his mother) and dark eyes thanks to his Spanish blood. Arnaud is everything that Cesare should be in this regard. Cesare Borgia was described as the most handsome man in Italy at one point, and personally I feel that Arnaud is perfect for this role. Had the scripting and accuracy been done better in The Borgias, he would be perfect. In fact, put Arnaud in Borgia and well, I can't think of anyone better. Ryder, although an incredibly handsome young man, just doesn't have the Borgia look for me. Whilst his hair is dark, and you can see the red in it (it is in fact a wig in season 1, if you watch the extras on the DVD Mark tells us just how expensive the wigs are), he is far too pale in complexion and has the brightest blue eyes. Whilst his eyes are just...(shallow me coming through)...stunningly beautiful, they aren't Cesare Borgia for me. His performance may be stunning, but looks wise, at least in season 1, I just couldn't see him as Cesare. Of course, both of these men are great as Cesare in their own right. But for me, looks wise, you can't beat Sergio Peris-Mancheta as Cesare Borgia;


Lucrezia Borgia


I'm going to say it now. I wasn't a fan of the story lines for Lucrezia in either show, more so in Borgia. I put this down to the fact that there really wasn't much of interest going on for Lucrezia other than being put into marriages that were just awful. Alright so she had a divorce and her second husband was killed horribly, and she was made governor of Spoleto and left in charge of the Vatican but I feel as if the writers of both shows found little else of interest and found themselves having to well...make stuff up to give her a good story arc. I'm going to be brutally honest here and say that I honestly preferred Holliday Grainger as Lucrezia. Despite the scripting being awful, she put her all into the performance and showed Lucrezia as what she was. The daughter of a Pope who goes from being an innocent to a young woman who knew what she wanted and took no crap. Whilst I adore Isolda Dychauk and feel like her performance as Lucrezia was stellar, I really disliked her storyline in Borgia, especially how both Alfonso D'Este AND Pietro Bembo were introduced far too early. 

Rodrigo Borgia


When I first started watching Borgia, I hated Doman's version of Rodrigo Borgia. Why? Quite simply it was odd for me to have an American Rodrigo Borgia. However as the show and the seasons go on you see the character develop into a manipulative man who is obsessed with getting his hands on the papal throne, and once he has it he's obsessed with getting more power and becomes a bit of a megalomaniac. For instance in season 2 you see him become rather ruthless, locking up cardinal's who piss him off and taking all their money; and demanding executions of petty criminals (even those who show remorse). In The Borgias you have the rather big time actor Jeremy Irons playing Rodrigo Borgia and I just didn't like him. Whilst he showed the wily side of Rodrigo's nature he just didn't come across well as Rodrigo (Pope Alexander VI) for me. In this, Doman will always be my Rodrigo Borgia for the sheer fact you see just how manipulative and wily Borgia could be.

Giulia Farnese


I will say from the start that Marta Gastini wins this one from the get go (the dark haired version of Giulia on the right of the picture above). Lotte Verbeek is a wonderful actress but I felt as though her version of Giulia was WAY too nicey nicey. From what I have read, although there is very little information out there on her, I have always imagined Giulia Farnese as a nasty, manipulative woman. Gastini shows this perfectly from the get go, using her womanly wiles to get exactly what she wants out of Rodrigo Borgia whereas Verbeek's characterisation is just far too....nice. This is nothing against Verbeek of course, as her performance was good but honestly I believe that Gastini shows the character of Giulia Farnese much better.

I could spend hours comparing the characters here and if I started on a comparison of Caterina Sforza I could probably write a book, the same with Juan Borgia, so I shan't carry on. In all honesty whilst each character has their pluses and minuses in each show I honesty think that Borgia has the upper hand. Whilst Arnaud may look like Cesare, Ryder's performance outshines his by a mile. I have come across many rants online about Borgia, about how it is oversexualised and badly performed because the actors all have different accents. But honestly I do not agree with any of this. Oversexualised? No, the era itself was full of sexual misdemeanour and each sex scene is actually really well done. It's raw it's passionate, exactly how it should be. And the reason behind the different accents? It is a European production, and Canal + went on the merits of the actors rather than what accent they had. Yes it takes a while to get used to the differences in the accents but once you do, you come to appreciate the acting behind it and the fantastic (much more accurate) storylines. I could also go on for pages and pages about the sets and how much better the sets of Borgia are, but again this is for a separate post. 

So all in all, I have to say that Borgia wins for me. Hands down. 

In fact, have a little video I made of Mark as Cesare in Borgia...



All graphics in this post have been made by me. If you want to use them, please do ask me. Thanks
↧
Viewing all 76 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>