says verbatim: "Since it is owing, not to the duke
named (Caesar), but to us and to the unmarried woman mentioned that you
bear this stain (of illegitimate birth), which for good reasons we did
not wish to state in the preceding instrument; and in order that there
may be no chance of your being caused annoyance in the future, we will
see to it that that document shall never be declared null, and of our
own free will, and by virtue of our authority, we confirm you, by these
presents, in the full enjoyment of everything as provided in that
instrument." Thereupon he renews the legitimation and announces that
even if this his child, which had hitherto been declared to be Caesar's,
shall in future, in any document or act be named and described as his
(Caesar's), and even if he uses Caesar's arms, it shall in no way inure to
the disadvantage of the child, and that all such acts shall have the
same force which they would have had if the boy had been described not
as Caesar's, but as his own, in the documents referring to his
legitimation.[113]

It is worthy of note that both these documents were executed on one and
the same day, but this is explained by the fact that the canon law
prevented the Pope from acknowledging his own son. Alexander, therefore,
extricated himself from the difficulty by telling a falsehood in the
first bull. This lie made the legitimation of the child possible, and
also conferred upon it the rights of succession; and this having once
been embodied in a legal document, the Pope could, without injury to the
child, tell the truth.

September 1, 1501, Caesar was not in Rome. Even a man of his stamp may
have blushed for his father, when he thus made him the rival of this
bastard for the possession of the property. Later, after Alexander's
death, the little Giovanni Borgia passed for Caesar's son; he had,
moreover, been described as such by the Pope in numerous briefs.[114]

It is not known who was the mother of this mysterious child. Burchard
speaks of her merely as a "certain Roman." If Alexander, who described
her as an "unmarried woman," told the truth, Giulia Farnese could not
have been its mother.

It is possible, however, that the Pope's second statement likewise was
untrue, and that the "Infante of Rome" was not his son, but was a
natural child of Lucretia. The reader will remember that in March, 1498,
the Ferrarese ambassador reported to Duke Ercole that it was rumored in
Rome that the Pope's dau