We are told that he gained his election by simony. It is very
probable that he did. But the accusation has never been categorically
established, and until that happens it would be well to moderate
the vituperation hurled at him. Charges of that simony are common;
conclusive proof there is none. We find Giacomo Trotti, the French
ambassador in Milan, writing to the Duke of Ferrara a fortnight after
Roderigo's election that "the Papacy has been sold by simony and a
thousand rascalities, which is a thing ignominious and detestable."

Ignominious and detestable indeed, if true; but be it remembered that
Trotti was the ambassador of France, whose candidate, backed by French
influence and French gold, as we have seen, was della Rovere; and, even
if his statement was true, the "ignominious and detestable thing" was at
least no novelty. Yet Guicciardini, treating of this matter, says: "He
gained the Pontificate owing to discord between the Cardinals Ascanio
Sforza and Giuliano di San Pietro in Vincoli; and still more because, in
a manner without precedent in that age [con esempio nuovo in quella eta]
he openly bought the votes of many cardinals, some with money, some with
promises of his offices and benefices, which were very great."

Again Guicciardini betrays his bias by attempting to render Roderigo's
course, assuming it for the moment to be truly represented, peculiarly
odious by this assertion that it was without precedent in that age.

Without precedent! What of the accusations of simony against Innocent
VIII, which rest upon a much sounder basis than these against Alexander,
and what of those against Sixtus IV? Further, if a simoniacal election
was unprecedented, what of Lorenzo Valla's fierce indictment of
simony--for which he so narrowly escaped the clutches of the Inquisition
some sixty years before this date?

Simony was rampant at the time, and it is the rankest hypocrisy to make
this outcry against Alexander's uses of it, and to forget the others.

Whether he really was elected by simony or not depends largely--so far
as the evidence available goes--upon what we are to consider as
simony. If payment in the literal sense was made or promised, then
unquestionably simony there was. But this, though often asserted, still
awaits proof. If the conferring of the benefices vacated by a cardinal
on his elevation to the Pontificate is to be considered simony, then
there never was a Pope yet against whom the charge could