The Pope Who Would Be King, page 34
In late September, General Rostolan renewed his request to Paris to accept his resignation. At the same time, Corcelle told Tocqueville that he wanted to resign as well, saying that he no longer had confidence in the course that the foreign minister was asking him to pursue. “Replace me,” he wrote his old friend on October 2, “as soon as possible.” In two weeks, he said, he could tie up loose ends and be ready to leave. “I write you with this firm decision with much calm and without the least bitterness. We have not had the same opinion on this immense and difficult affair. That is all. It will not in the least harm our good friendship.”8
As Corcelle waited for a response, he continued to pepper the foreign minister with his complaints. “I still find in your personal letters very little goodwill toward the Church,” he wrote. “How could you compare the Church to a Turkish camp on the banks of the Bosporus? That is not worthy of you. I no longer understand anything of your witticisms on this question….To deal with the Church, the first requirement is to know the Church, and I should even add…to love it….What a shame that you are Protestant!”9
On receiving Corcelle’s letter of resignation, Tocqueville, who, while not a very observant Catholic, was hardly a Protestant, hurriedly penned a reply. He could only hope, he wrote, that Corcelle’s decision was not irrevocable. Everyone knew that he was Tocqueville’s close friend. To have him so publicly repudiate Tocqueville’s policies would be deeply harmful.10
Tocqueville’s letter had the desired effect. After vowing that he would never do anything to hurt his friend, Corcelle agreed to stay. But the tension between the two remained.11
* * *
—
IN ROME, MONSIGNOR SAVELLI, the bulldog, had been wasting no time putting the pope’s plan into action. On September 24 he sent a new order to Rome’s police:
By force of that Notification issued by His Holiness’s express wish, all individuals who are excluded from the pardon that has been conceded, either because they had taken part in the provisional government, or taken part in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, or been members of the republican Triumvirate, or heads of military units, or those who, having given their word after the earlier amnesty, got involved in the recent political unrest…must be immediately arrested and subjected to the justice of the competent Criminal Tribunal.12
Two weeks later a new body, a board of censors, was created. It was to identify all those teachers and professors who had taken part in the recent “political turmoil” and judge whether they should be allowed to continue to occupy their positions.13
Among the problems facing papal authorities was reining in the city’s youths, many of whom had been enthusiastic participants in the battle against the priests. In mid-October, Rome’s cardinal vicar received an anonymous complaint about Rome’s night schools for children, established by the republican government but still in operation after its fall.
It was as beautiful for a Republican as it was painful for a true Catholic to see bands of these young people prancing through the streets loudly shouting songs against Religion, against the Holy Father, and against all of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy….After the entry of the French, and the restoration of the Papal Government, they had the temerity in one of the night schools to shout Papal Pig! Long Live the Roman Republic.
That the schools were still allowed to operate, complained the informer, was a scandal.14
A religious revolution was under way, Rome’s police prefect confided to the French colonel Niel. Disgusted with the papal regime, many Romans now, he thought, wanted to become Protestant. Niel, in relating this conversation to his brother, said it brought to mind the story about the Jew who came to Rome. The man was so struck by the amount of corruption among the priests there that he decided to be baptized on the spot. This must be the true religion, he explained, if it could have survived for so long with such horrendous ministers.15
“The greatest discontent prevails at Rome,” reported a British envoy in early October, as each new action of the cardinals’ commission generated greater hostility. “Every act of theirs has shown the strongest tendency to retrograde principles and to the adoption of the abuses of the old priestly rule….The Pope is now undoubtedly swayed by entirely opposite principles to those formerly entertained by him.”16
Nor was the pope’s popularity in Rome being helped by his recent move into the Neapolitan king’s magnificent palace outside Naples. “His continuous excursions, his sumptuous visits,” observed the Austrian consul, “while Rome’s ruins still smolder…are interpreted in a way that is most harmful to the affection and respect that these people were accustomed to show the heads of the Church.” Why, the Romans asked, did the pope not do as Pius VII, driven into exile by Napoleon, had done and live simply, spending his days praying to God to protect his people? “Pio Nono,” observed a British journalist of the time, “has taken a fancy to the Neapolitan soil, as well as, I fear, an aversion to his own, and he seems too happy in the quiet and security of the one to be in any hurry to engage in the turmoils of the other.” There was some truth to this picture, for the pope did view the prospect of returning to his restive capital with great trepidation. Although he was not entirely comfortable living in Ferdinand’s palace, he basked in the flattery and the attention the royal family showered on him there.17
Others were coming to the same conclusion: the pope’s embrace of King Ferdinand was taking a toll. “I am again the witness of horrors,” observed the British naval captain Key in Naples on October 6. “This ill-advised King of Naples is arresting everyone who took part, or is supposed to have wished to take part, in any of the disturbances which have taken place since January ’48. A reign of terror exists. No one on going to bed feels sure that he will not be in prison before morning.” The French ambassador was of the same view: “The terror is always at a fever pitch. Everyone feels threatened, pursued. They are living in a state of siege, war councils, and bloody executions.” The police and courts, Rayneval reported, “display the most uncontrollable zeal and strike…at the most honorable of men.” In the pope’s frequent trips into Naples to visit the city’s convents, he observed, “one is always struck by how little enthusiasm, how little sign of veneration one finds along the way.”18
* * *
—
IN MID-OCTOBER, LOUIS NAPOLEON’S need to get a new round of funding for the Roman expedition led to another lengthy debate in the French Assembly. Among those speaking in opposition to the request was Victor Hugo. Gesturing dramatically, the famed author spoke warmly of the letter the president had sent to Rome, contrasting it with the pope’s response, in the form of his recent motu proprio outlining his plan for restored papal government.
A huge distance separates them. The one says yes, the other says no! It is impossible to escape the dilemma posed by these things. You absolutely have to say that one of them is wrong. If you approve the letter, you disapprove the motu proprio. If you accept the motu proprio, you disavow the letter. You have, on one side, the president of the Republic, calling for freedom for the Roman people, in the name of a great nation that, for three centuries has brought enlightenment…to the civilized world. On the other side, you have Cardinal Antonelli, refusing, in the name of the clerical government. Choose!19
“Pope Pius IX,” wrote Hugo some time later, “is simple, sweet, timid, fearful, slow in his movements, negligent about his person…one would say a country priest.” He added, “Beside him, Antonelli, in his red stockings, with his look of a diplomat and the eyebrows of a spy, resembles nothing so much as an unsavory bodyguard.”20
After three days of debate, Tocqueville—not known for his skills as an orator—got up to speak. He had dreaded this moment. He certainly could not tell the truth. How could he tell the deputies that the pope was committed to a return to the old theocracy and that the French government had, against the express wishes of the Assembly, used the nation’s military might to destroy a republic, end constitutional rule, and restore a government widely viewed as a vestige of medieval times? How could he admit that far from acting to thwart the ambitions of Austria, France’s bitter rival, the government had done exactly what the Austrians wanted it to do?
The French government, Tocqueville told the members of the National Assembly, had made a series of demands. The basic principles contained in Rome’s 1848 constitution had to be retained, most important those protecting individual freedoms. The courts had to guarantee people’s basic rights. Municipal and provincial assemblies, composed of members elected by the people, had to be created. Laypeople must replace priests in the government.
Tocqueville then went on to say that, while negotiations were still in progress, the pope—despite all appearances—had made known his intention to embrace the path of reform. At that point, the voices of derision from the left became too loud for the foreign minister to continue.
“Can you, messieurs, doubt the word of the Holy Father?” Tocqueville asked when he could once again be heard. On saying these words, pronounced in the purest bad faith, Tocqueville became overcome with emotion, or perhaps simply by a guilty conscience. He struggled to regain his composure.
Because he had faith in Pius IX, said Tocqueville when he was able to continue, he was confident that the French mission would succeed. “I believe it,” he told the deputies, “because in answering our prayers, he will only be persevering in this grand design…of reconciling freedom with faith and continuing to play the great role that he has so gloriously begun.” Here again Tocqueville had to stop amid the laughter from the benches on the left. Only repeated calls to order by the Assembly president allowed the foreign minister to complete his remarks.
Two days later, following hours of raucous debate, the deputies cast their votes. Although the voices from the left had been loud, their numbers were far too few to carry the day. The motion to continue funding the Rome mission was approved.21
* * *
—
ON THE MORNING OF October 28, Rayneval, in Naples, having received word of the French Assembly vote, rushed to Portici, where he found the pope with King Ferdinand. Both were pleased to hear the news, the pope especially effusive. “It is very clear,” said Pius, “that God is protecting us.”22
Rayneval had new worries. He had recently heard rumors that the pope, his fears fanned by Cardinal Antonelli, had decided not to return to Rome until he could find a way to get other, more congenial military forces to replace the French troops there.
The ambassador sought out the secretary of state. “Waiting for the French to cede their position to others,” he warned Antonelli, “is to count on the impossible. We will withdraw when the pope is in a position to rule by himself and when the other armies have also left. How,” he asked, “could we imagine leaving the Papal States as long as the Austrian army continues to occupy it?” The pope needed to get back to Rome and, with French help, organize his own papal army so that all the foreign forces could go. “What then are the difficulties?” asked Rayneval. “Show us the obstacles, and we will make them disappear.”
Finding the cardinal inscrutable, the ambassador went to see the pope. “Don’t worry,” said the pontiff, trying to calm him down. “I will return to Rome, and I will return there soon. I am not talking about January or February. That would be much too late. The time has come.” This, however, did not mean that he no longer had any concerns, for, he told Rayneval, he had recently learned of “sinister” plots aimed against him in Rome. “Not that I fear for my own person,” Pius quickly added. “I am in God’s hands. But it is necessary to prevent new misfortunes.”23
Despite all the unhappiness in Rome, the pope did have some reason to believe that people would be glad to have him back. Many Romans’ livelihoods depended on having the papacy in Rome, for the city’s role as the worldwide center of Roman Catholicism was its lifeblood. The Austrian consul in Rome explained:
I am convinced that the Holy Father will be received with all the dignity and demonstrations of respect that are due to him, for it is an indisputable fact that the people are all more or less “papal.” Their interests are too tied to the presence of the head of the Church. They are too frustrated by his absence, and the habits, the way of life, even their customs are too linked to the specialty of ecclesiastical government to be able to give it up all at once. Moreover, today the Romans are everywhere eager to return to the old state of tranquility which promises them the advantages of a comfortable life. This desire can only be realized by the presence of the pope in Rome. Today everyone understands this truth, and though the government is doing little to end the abuses of the previous administration—something in truth not easy to do—and while the organization of the different branches of the judiciary and of finance are regulated on the most intolerable basis, he will find sympathy everywhere.24
* * *
—
AMONG ROME’S MOST ANXIOUS inhabitants, the city’s four thousand Jews, now crowded back into their insalubrious ghetto, waited to learn their fate. The freedom that Pius IX had once granted them to leave the ghetto without getting a special license had been revoked. Once again, in order to travel they needed to get a special permit from the Holy Office of the Inquisition to be shown to the authorities at every town they passed through. For the Jews, it was a source of mortification. The Roman Republic’s proclamation of freedom for all was now only a memory.25
The raid on the ghetto began early one morning when it was still dark. At four a.m. on October 25, French troops took up positions at the ghetto’s gates, preventing anyone from entering or leaving. Along the Tiber, which bordered the ghetto on one side, several police boats docked. The papal officers stepped out of their boats and entered the ghetto’s narrow, labyrinthine streets. There they barged into homes, ransacking them in search of goods that had been taken from church property and from aristocrats’ palaces during the recent months of republican rule.26
Identifying the Jews with the forces that had overthrown the pope’s rule offered the papal government a means of winning back the support of Rome’s popolani. The Giornale di Roma, the city’s official paper, gave prominence to the story. “It being notorious that many objects stolen in the days of the past anarchy were sold to the Jews,” reported the paper, “in the night preceding the 25th the police surrounded the Ghetto and proceeded to search the homes.”
The searches lasted two full days. In homes where police found suspicious objects, they arrested the Jewish family head and marched him to jail. Protests that the items were their own availed the Jews little. Church officials were eager to publicize all the treasures said to have been discovered in the ghetto. The list was long although rather modest: cardinals’ red skullcaps, linens from church altars, lace surplices of priests, copper dishes, and many silver vases, sugar bowls, forks, spoons, and knives.27
Curiously, the police report on the raid justified it not by any evidence that stolen goods had been found in the ghetto but by anger at the Jews for having embraced the recent republican government. “The Jews in general nourished an indescribable hatred for the Pontifical Government,” charged the police report, “and a true pleasure for the Anarchic Government, not showing any shame in being in the first ranks of the Demagogues, in the city government, in the clubs, and in other places where the sects meet.” It could not have escaped the notice of papal authorities that two Jews had been elected to the Constituent Assembly, and three others had served on Rome’s city council.28
Aware that Tocqueville would be newly outraged by this news, Corcelle—perhaps sharing in the popular prejudices against the Jews but in any case eager to keep Tocqueville’s unhappiness with the pope from growing even greater—wrote to assure him that the searches had been prompted by reasonable suspicions and were in full compliance with the law. The ghetto raid, the French envoy added, was met by “the great applause of the entire population, who were beginning to think that [the Jews] were being treated as a privileged class.”29
* * *
—
BY THE TIME CORCELLE’S note arrived in Paris, his old friend was in fact no longer foreign minister. In a move that would prove to be the first step on a course that would soon lead to the French Republic’s demise, Louis Napoleon announced that he wanted a ministry that better reflected his own views. His existing cabinet was composed in good part of the men he had appointed shortly after becoming president, when, as a little known newcomer, he needed the support of notables from some of the most influential groups in the Assembly. Now that he felt more secure, he was eager to free himself from men who had their own political followings and their own agendas. His new cabinet would be composed of men of little political weight, many drawn from the military, accountable to him alone. Odilon Barrot, the defenestrated prime minister, expressed alarm at what he referred to as Napoleon’s “coup d’état.” But while many members of the French Assembly were shocked by the move, they made little effort to oppose it.30
Louis Napoleon also decided to dismiss Corcelle, whom he viewed as too close to Tocqueville, and to recall General Rostolan from Rome as well. The roles of head of the expeditionary army and ambassador to the Holy See were to be combined and placed in the hands of a career military officer. For this, the president chose a man of the monarchist right, fifty-four-year-old General Achille Baraguey d’Hilliers.
Surprisingly, Napoleon announced his intention to replace Tocqueville, his foreign minister, not with a military man or with someone known to be close to him but rather with the French ambassador in Naples, Alphonse de Rayneval.
