Cesare Borgia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
maleborgia) wrote2011-02-21 11:14 am
maleborgia) wrote2011-02-21 11:14 am
Entry tags:
Canon
I'm going to break the trend of the posts in this journal to talk exclusively, for a moment, about Cesare in canon. Usually I kind of flip back and forth or tl;dr about something that relates to the historical period in general, but a bunch of new chapters came out in his canon last week and I'm really enjoying where it's headed with his characterization.
I didn't realize this until these most recent updates, but part of what I like so much about the series is that the way Cesare is portrayed is very fluid and it's been left (at least it has been so far) very open for debate just how good or bad or anything he really is. There's one scene that I really liked where Miguel goes to talk to Angelo about Cesare, basically warning him against putting him up on a pedestal like Angelo's been starting to do. He says that Cesare is very good at adapting to different situations and playing the part of whoever he needs to to gain the other's trust. (Part of why I liked this was because that was an assumption I was working off of in Camp.) There's a disjoint between the public and the private, which is something that I talked about briefly before but want to get more into at some other point. Miguel says that Cesare does not understand the meaning of friendship or real trust, that he's incredibly ruthless and willing to do whatever he needs to in order to get ahead, and that he is in short a very dangerous man. At the same time, however, he does add that once Cesare has worked it out so that you are on his side, he is incredibly reliable. He describes him not as the "paragon of virtue" that Angelo sees him as but as an efficient if cut-throat administrator.
Angelo was surprised because he has also seen glimpses of a different face than the one Cesare typically presents to the public and it did not match up with the one Miguel was describing. He believed (or had been led to believe, as Miguel argues) that Cesare held genuine concern for others, regardless of whether or not they would be useful to him, and that while he could certainly be ruthless it was in order to protect those who needed it and to defend himself and others. He thought that Cesare was far more egalitarian and compassionate than most people, and secretly working to better Pisa and humanity. He had argued in the past that the reason Cesare fought Henri was because he had insulted Miguel. Angelo had said that he had been annoyed at the situation in general but only truly angry once the argument had turned against pluralism and Miguel's honor had been at stake. In keeping with the development of these two different points of view of the titular character, Miguel had not been present for the same parts of the scene as Angelo and does not seem to have been able to hear the argument, at least not as clearly as Angelo. When the two boys discussed it afterwards, Miguel brushed off Angelo's claim, saying that Cesare would say that he did it for himself, for his own personal reasons and, as he had predicted, Cesare did.
I like this arrangement because (and I assume this was done on purpose) Miguel and Angelo represent in this way two common and opposing views of Cesare in the literature about him. (Actually, okay, I think it's a really really cute set up if this was the intent and I'm pretty sure it was. I don't know how to say this without gushing dorkily, but basically the two characters are really good for espousing these views. It makes sense within the context of the plot and there're all these little things about them that just make me smile at the mirror they're holding up to the literature.) I think the reader is supposed to come to the conclusion that neither is completely correct and that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between. Angelo's idealization of Cesare is flawed just as is Miguel's argument against him. I. I'm so happy with this series. I get so frustrated when Cesare's taken to either extreme because, no, he was a human and to make him an angel or a demon is to invalidate all that he did accomplish and the varied reactions that everyone had to him. I really like that so far the message has been (about the character and by extension about the historical person) that it's impossible to really know what he's thinking or what order to peel through his layers.
Angelo and Miguel come to different conclusions about the same actions in large part because they are disagreeing about the order of rationales Cesare gives. Lucretia also gets a different presentation and therefore comes to a different conclusion, as do the other students in the university. Cesare complicates matters by actively seeking to confuse things--lying, telling two different versions, letting only a few people see certain aspects. Miguel comes to the conclusion he does because he is one of the only people who is allowed to hear Cesare debrief in private. Even then, however, canon nudges at the point that that isn't really Cesare in private. We never really see him alone. He'll get a panel or two when he feels that no one is watching him and the reader will get the briefest glimpse of what might (could be, possibly) Cesare with his guard down. Once even Miguel arrives, however, he transitions if only slightly. Angelo senses this and seems to understand it better than Miguel does, although Miguel is also right in that Cesare is very adept at hiding another, more ambitious face behind the supposedly secret pious one that Angelo discovered. The real question is what is the final layer and so far canon has been loathe to show it. Honestly, I hope that it never does.
I didn't realize this until these most recent updates, but part of what I like so much about the series is that the way Cesare is portrayed is very fluid and it's been left (at least it has been so far) very open for debate just how good or bad or anything he really is. There's one scene that I really liked where Miguel goes to talk to Angelo about Cesare, basically warning him against putting him up on a pedestal like Angelo's been starting to do. He says that Cesare is very good at adapting to different situations and playing the part of whoever he needs to to gain the other's trust. (Part of why I liked this was because that was an assumption I was working off of in Camp.) There's a disjoint between the public and the private, which is something that I talked about briefly before but want to get more into at some other point. Miguel says that Cesare does not understand the meaning of friendship or real trust, that he's incredibly ruthless and willing to do whatever he needs to in order to get ahead, and that he is in short a very dangerous man. At the same time, however, he does add that once Cesare has worked it out so that you are on his side, he is incredibly reliable. He describes him not as the "paragon of virtue" that Angelo sees him as but as an efficient if cut-throat administrator.
Angelo was surprised because he has also seen glimpses of a different face than the one Cesare typically presents to the public and it did not match up with the one Miguel was describing. He believed (or had been led to believe, as Miguel argues) that Cesare held genuine concern for others, regardless of whether or not they would be useful to him, and that while he could certainly be ruthless it was in order to protect those who needed it and to defend himself and others. He thought that Cesare was far more egalitarian and compassionate than most people, and secretly working to better Pisa and humanity. He had argued in the past that the reason Cesare fought Henri was because he had insulted Miguel. Angelo had said that he had been annoyed at the situation in general but only truly angry once the argument had turned against pluralism and Miguel's honor had been at stake. In keeping with the development of these two different points of view of the titular character, Miguel had not been present for the same parts of the scene as Angelo and does not seem to have been able to hear the argument, at least not as clearly as Angelo. When the two boys discussed it afterwards, Miguel brushed off Angelo's claim, saying that Cesare would say that he did it for himself, for his own personal reasons and, as he had predicted, Cesare did.
I like this arrangement because (and I assume this was done on purpose) Miguel and Angelo represent in this way two common and opposing views of Cesare in the literature about him. (Actually, okay, I think it's a really really cute set up if this was the intent and I'm pretty sure it was. I don't know how to say this without gushing dorkily, but basically the two characters are really good for espousing these views. It makes sense within the context of the plot and there're all these little things about them that just make me smile at the mirror they're holding up to the literature.) I think the reader is supposed to come to the conclusion that neither is completely correct and that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between. Angelo's idealization of Cesare is flawed just as is Miguel's argument against him. I. I'm so happy with this series. I get so frustrated when Cesare's taken to either extreme because, no, he was a human and to make him an angel or a demon is to invalidate all that he did accomplish and the varied reactions that everyone had to him. I really like that so far the message has been (about the character and by extension about the historical person) that it's impossible to really know what he's thinking or what order to peel through his layers.
Angelo and Miguel come to different conclusions about the same actions in large part because they are disagreeing about the order of rationales Cesare gives. Lucretia also gets a different presentation and therefore comes to a different conclusion, as do the other students in the university. Cesare complicates matters by actively seeking to confuse things--lying, telling two different versions, letting only a few people see certain aspects. Miguel comes to the conclusion he does because he is one of the only people who is allowed to hear Cesare debrief in private. Even then, however, canon nudges at the point that that isn't really Cesare in private. We never really see him alone. He'll get a panel or two when he feels that no one is watching him and the reader will get the briefest glimpse of what might (could be, possibly) Cesare with his guard down. Once even Miguel arrives, however, he transitions if only slightly. Angelo senses this and seems to understand it better than Miguel does, although Miguel is also right in that Cesare is very adept at hiding another, more ambitious face behind the supposedly secret pious one that Angelo discovered. The real question is what is the final layer and so far canon has been loathe to show it. Honestly, I hope that it never does.