I had a thought to call this book Pale Hands or Fair Hands Imbrued--so easy it is to fall into the ghastly error of facetiousness.
Apart, however, from the desire to avoid pedant or puerile humour, re- examination of my material showed me how near I had been to crashing into a pitfall of another sort.Of the ladies with whose encounters with the law I propose to deal several were assoiled of the charges against them.Their hands, then--unless the present ruddying of female fingernails is the revival of an old fashion--were not pink-tipped, save, perhaps, in the way of health; nor imbrued, except in soapsuds.My proposed facetiousness put me in peril of libel.
Interest in the criminous doings of women is so alive and avid among criminological writers that it is hard indeed to find material which has not been dealt with to the point of exhaustion.Does one pick up in a secondhand bookshop a pamphlet giving a verbatim report of a trial in which a woman is the central figure, and does one flatter oneself that the find is unique, and therefore providing of fresh fields, it is almost inevitable that one will discover, or rediscover, that the case has already been put to bed by Mr Roughead in his inimitable manner.What a nose the man has! What noses all these rechauffeurs of crime possess! To use a figure perhaps something unmannerly, the pigs of Perigord, which, one hears, are trained to hunt truffles, have snouts no keener.
Suppose, again, that one proposes to deal with the peccancy of women from the earliest times, it is hard to find a lady, even one whose name has hitherto gleamed lurid in history, to whom some modern writer has not contrived by chapter and verse to apply a coat of whitewash.
Locusta, the poisoner whom Agrippina, wanting to kill the Emperor Claudius by slow degrees, called into service, and whose technique Nero admired so much that he was fain to put her on his pension list, barely escapes the deodorant.Messalina comes up in memory.And then one finds M.Paul Moinet, in his historical essays En Marge de l'histoire, gracefully pleading for the lady as Messaline la calomniee--yes, and ****** out a good case for her.The Empress Theodora under the pen ofa psychological expert becomes nothing more dire than a clever little whore disguised in imperial purple.
On the mention of poison Lucretia Borgia springs to mind.This is the lady of whom Gibbon writes with the following ponderous falsity:
In the next generation the house of Este was sullied by a sanguinary and ******uous race in the nuptials of Alfonso I with Lucretia, a bastard of Alexander VI, the Tiberius of Christian Rome.This modern Lucretia might have assumed with more propriety the name of Messalina, since the woman who can be guilty, who can even be accused, of a criminal intercourse with a father and two brothers must be abandoned to all the licentiousness of a venal love.
That, if the phrase may be pardoned, is swatting a butterfly with a sledge-hammer! Poor little Lucretia, described by the excellent M.Moinet as a bon petit coeur,'' is enveloped in the political ordure slung by venal pamphleteers at the masterful men of her race.My friend Rafael Sabatini, than whom no man living has dug deeper into Borgia history, explains the calumniation of Lucretia in this fashion: Adultery and promiscuous intercourse were the fashion in Rome at the time of Alexander VI.Nobody thought anything of them.And to have accused the Borgia girl, or her relatives, of such inconsiderable lapses would have been to evoke mere shrugging.But ******, of course, was horrible.The writers paid by the party antagonistic to the Borgia growth in power therefore slung the more scurrile accusation.But there is, in truth, just about as much foundation for the charge as there is for the other, that Lucretia was a poisoner.The answer to the latter accusation, says my same authority, may take the form of a question: WHOM DID LUCRETIA POISON? As far as history goes, even that written by the Borgia enemies, the reply is, NOBODY!
Were one content, like Gibbon, to take one's history like snuff there would be to hand a mass of caliginous detail with which to cause shuddering in the unsuspecting reader.But in mere honesty, if in nothing else, it behoves the conscientious writer to examine the sources of his information.The sources may be--they too frequently are--contaminated by political rancour and bias, and calumnious accusation against historicalfigures too often is founded on mere envy.And then the rechauffeurs, especially where rechauffage is made from one language to another, have been apt (with a mercenary desire to give their readers as strong a brew as possible) to attach the darkest meanings to the words they translate.In this regard, and still apropos the Borgias, I draw once again on Rafael Sabatini for an example of what I mean.Touching the festivities celebrating Lucretia's wedding in the Vatican, the one eyewitness whose writing remains, Gianandrea Boccaccio, Ferrarese ambassador, in a letter to his master says that amid singing and dancing, as an interlude, aworthy'' comedy was performed.The diarist Infessura, who was not there, takes it upon himself to describe the comedy as lascivious.'' Lascivious the comedies of the time commonly were, but later writers, instead of drawing their ideas from the eyewitness, prefer the dark hints of Infessura, and are persuaded that the comedy, the whole festivity, wasobscene.'' Hence arises the notion, so popular, that the second Borgia Pope delighted in shows which anticipated those of the Folies Bergere, or which surpassed the danse du ventre in lust-excitation.
