The Pope Who Would Be King, page 43
36. Zucchi 1861, p. 146; Cittadini 1989, pp. 137–38.
37. Zucchi 1861, pp. 146–50; Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 13 novembre 1848, doc. 229 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 286–87; Giovagnoli 1898, p. 244n; Candeloro 1972, pp. 275–79.
38. Bianchi 1869, vol. 6, p. 16.
CHAPTER 7: THE ASSASSINATION
1. Marco Minghetti, who passed them as he made his way into the building that day, was himself taken aback, describing the legionnaires as “sinister looking thugs.” Minghetti 1889, vol. 2, p. 122; Farini 1850–53, vol. 2, pp. 366–67.
2. There are numerous accounts of the morning of Rossi’s murder and of the murder itself, and many are clearly unreliable. I have tried here as best I can to stick closely to eyewitness sources and to avoid the many embellishments the story has acquired. Among those I’ve used is the description given in Michelangelo Pinto’s unpublished manuscript, MCRR, Fondo Pinto, b. 887, pp. 139–43; also Ideville 1887, pp. 231–50; Arrigoni 1996, pp. 71–72, 80–85; Roncalli 1972, pp. 315–16; Nicefero 1899, pp. 165–67; Rosmini alla cognata Adelaide Cristiani, Gaeta, 29 novembre 1848, doc. XLII in Rosmini 1998, pp. 338–39; Pasolini 1887, p. 145n; Martina 1974, pp. 289–90. The account that seems most credible, and the one largely employed by Martina (1974, pp. 289–90), is offered by Giovagnoli (1898, pp. 266–71). In this recounting, seven men met in a little tavern the evening of November 14 to plan the murder. The mastermind was Pietro Sterbini—the exiled doctor-poet who had returned to Rome following Pio Nono’s amnesty, and who had months earlier written one of the most popular songs of praise to the pope. It seems that at a meeting on the evening of November 12, Pietro Sterbini, Charles Bonaparte, and Ciceruacchio decided that Rossi should be killed. On the fourteenth, Sterbini, appealing to the young man’s commitment to the cause of freedom and challenging him to show his courage, convinced Luigi Brunetti, Ciceruacchio’s elder son, to do the deed. The investigation of who killed Rossi, begun immediately after the murder but then suspended until September 1849, lasted until 1854. For diplomatic reasons, the pope decided to repress all direct mention of the role of Charles Bonaparte, the cousin of the ruler of France. There remains some uncertainty about the details. Bartoccini (1969, p. 8), in his examination of the evidence, argues that Charles Bonaparte bore only moral responsibility for the murder and was not directly involved in planning it. See also Niceforo 1899, pp. 165–66.
3. Giovagnoli 1898, p. 281; Ideville 1887, pp. 257–58.
4. Giovagnoli 1911, pp. 23–24, 38; Boero 1850, p. 138.
5. Giovagnoli 1898, pp. 282–87; Farini 1850–53, vol. 2, pp. 373–75; Martina 1974, pp. 290–91; Pasolini 1887, p. 145n.
6. Minghetti 1889, vol. 2, p. 125.
7. Carlo Muzzarelli, president of the Upper Chamber, was a cleric of a peculiar stripe. Although addressed as monsignor and wearing black clerical gowns, the sixty-one-year-old Muzzarelli was not an ordained priest. From a noble family in Ferrara, he had worked as an ecclesiastical lawyer in the administration of the Holy See in Rome while pursuing his literary interests, including a passion for Latin. Although no radical, he had over the past months been won over to the patriotic cause; Bustico 1939.
8. Minghetti 1889, vol. 2, pp. 123–25; Pasolini 1887, pp. 144–49; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 2, pp. 216–20.
9. Giovagnoli 1898, p. 289; Lancellotti 1862, p. 15. The quote is from Mount Edgcumbe 1850, p. 14.
10. Rosmini a Donna Adelaide Cristani, Gaeta, 29 novembre 1848, doc. XLII in Rosmini 1998, pp. 339–40; Liedekerke à Monsieur le Baron, Rome, 24 novembre 1848, Liedekerke 1949, p. 117. That Margaret Fuller’s reports of events were not always accurate is evident in her own report of the death of Monsignor Palma, which she did not witness. “This man,” wrote the American correspondent, “provoked his fate by firing on the people from a window.” Deiss 1969, p. 185.
11. Harcourt à Bastide, 17 novembre 1848, Rome, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 988, ff. 146r–147v; Foramiti 1850, p. 13.
12. Farini 1850–53, vol. 2, p. 380. A slightly different version of the pope’s remarks is given in Spada 1868–69, vol. 2, p. 524.
13. Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 17 novembre 1848, doc. 234 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 289–90; Gaillard 1861, pp. 419–23. The disarming of the Swiss Guard is chronicled in “Parlamento del Corpo Diplomatico a S. Sanità presso il Quirinale ed altre notizie del giorno,” Roma, 17 novembre [1848], MCRR, ms. 126/33, Nicola Roncalli, documenti a stampa, 1848.
14. Rosmini a Donna Adelaide Cristani, Gaeta, 29 novembre 1848, doc. XLII in Rosmini 1998, p. 340; Rosmini a Puecher, Gaeta, 19 dicembre 1848, doc. XLV/2 in Rosmini 1998, pp. 354–55.
15. Pásztor 1966, pp. 334–35; Camarotto 2012; Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 17 novembre 1848, doc. 235 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 291. The pope’s remarks are taken from the Tuscan ambassador’s report, quoted in Ferrari 2002, p. 127.
16. Harcourt à Bastide, 17 novembre 1848, Rome, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 988, ff. 146r–147v. By the seventeenth, Cardinal Soglia was already sending out letters to the nuncios recounting these events, the violence used against the pope on the sixteenth, and his ceding to force with the approval of the diplomatic corps. Card. Soglia al Nunzio Apostolico, Madrid, ASV, ANM, b. 313, f. 70r. The text of the program presented to the pope by the newly appointed government ministers on November 17, then published the next day in Rome, can be found in Miraglia 1850, pp. 36–37. It focused on plans to have the Papal States take part in the battle for Italian independence, with the pope joining with the rulers of the other states of Italy in some kind of political union.
17. Roncalli 1972, p. 320; Liedekerke à Monsieur le Baron, Rome, 24 novembre 1848, doc. LVIII in Liedekerke 1949, p. 119. For the cardinal’s later remarks citing the protection that Holy Mary gave him that day, and the symbolism of his possible death in the hay in the manger, see the passage from his letter quoted in Manzini 1960, p. 401.
18. Liedekerke à Monsieur le Baron, Rome, 24 novembre 1848, doc. LVIII in Liedekerke 1949, p. 119.
19. The letter of Jules Bastide, the French foreign minister, to Harcourt in Rome, recounting these instructions, is reproduced in Leflon 1963, p. 388.
20. “It is extremely unfortunate,” Madrid’s ambassador reported to his government, “that on an occasion as serious as this, the steamship that was sent to Civitavecchia is not there….Today, I briefly got to see His Holiness who was so pleased by my offers in the name of Her Majesty’s government that he could not hold back his tears.” De Chambrun 1936, pp. 330–31; Key 1898, pp. 117–18, 175.
21. Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 18 novembre 1848, doc. 236 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 291–92; Aubert 1961, p. 3; Coppa 1990, p. 59. That morning, having heard the same rumors, Rosmini went to see the pope. Cardinal Antonelli, whom he found waiting outside the pope’s door, pretended to know nothing about any plan for escape. But, he asked Rosmini, did he think leaving Rome was a good idea? Yes, replied the abbot. Pius was no longer safe in Rome. He had come not to dissuade the pope from leaving but to ask whether the pontiff would want Rosmini to join him wherever he went. Antonelli agreed to ask and went into the pope’s quarters. He returned a few minutes later, with the pope’s reply: the pope would be very grateful if Rosmini would join him at his destination. Rosmini 1998, pp. 88–89.
22. Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 21 novembre 1848, doc. 238 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 294–95; Minghetti 1889, vol. 2, p. 128.
23. Spada 1868–69, vol. 2, p. 443.
24. Minghetti 1889, vol. x, pp. 128–31; Spada 1868–69, vol. 2, p. 534.
CHAPTER 8: THE ESCAPE
1. Flint 2003, pp. 109–10; De Chambrun 1936, pp. 327–29.
2. The letter from the bishop of Valence is dated October 15, 1848, and reproduced in Orbe 1850, vol. 1, pp. 1–2; Jankowiak 2008, p. 131n; Pelczar 1909, p. 406; Martina 1974, p. 298; Berra 1957, p. 684.
3. This had the advantage of enlisting the aid of the two major Catholic powers in Europe, for in the absence of the Austrian ambassador, withdrawn earlier from Rome in protest, Spaur represented Austrian interests in Rome. De Chambrun 1936, p. 339; Spaur 1851, pp. 16–17; Simeoni 1932, p. 255; Berra 1957, p. 672.
4. Key 1898, p. 176.
5. The Ténare had been at Civitavecchia for more than a month at that point, left there at Harcourt’s disposal. De Chambrun 1936, p. 335.
6. Monsagrati 2014, pp. 5–6; Spaur 1851, pp. 17–21. According to the Belgian ambassador, on seeing that he would have to get in the carriage with Spaur’s wife, the pope exclaimed, “Je dois donc boire le calice jusqu’à la lie” (And so I must drink the chalice to the dregs). She would come to be known in diplomatic circles, with not a little sarcasm, as “Our Lady of Gaeta.” De Ligne 1929, pp. 170–71, 181. For more on Teresa Spaur, see Berra 1957, p. 672; Silvagni 1887, pp. 281–86.
7. Piscicelli 1978, p. 28.
8. The text of the pope’s letter is found in Spaur 1851, pp. 33–34; De Chambrun 1936, pp. 345–47.
9. Blois 1854, pp. 7–9.
10. Ibid., pp. 9–10.
11. De Chambrun 1936, pp. 333–34.
12. Martina 1974, pp. 299–300. In an early December letter to the nuncio in Paris, Antonelli described his arrival with the pope in Gaeta as “truly by chance, because we had planned to go in a very different direction on leaving from Rome.” Pásztor 1966, p. 340n. However, the evidence suggests that it was Antonelli who steered the pope to Gaeta and made sure he remained there. Liedekerke à Monsieur le Baron, Rome, 27 novembre 1848, 10 a.m., doc. LIX in Liedekerke 1949, p. 120; “Preciso ragguaglio dell’imbarco di S.S. a Civitavecchia,” BSMC, FS; Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 25 novembre 1848, docs. 243 and 244, in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 298–99.
Before Harcourt set sail from Civitavecchia to Gaeta, he had sent a message to the French foreign minister. The pope had left Rome the previous evening, he reported, “and his intention is to go to France. He has gone to Gaeta, a convenient place for embarking on the Ténare.” Why the pope would have gone to Gaeta in order to board the French ship Harcourt did not explain. De Chambrun 1936, pp. 338–39; Mollat 1939, p. 276.
13. Blois 1854, pp. 10–11; Filipuzzi 1961, vol. 1, pp. 364–65.
14. Roncalli 1972, p. 324; “Romani,” 25 novembre 1848, BSMC, FS. In a second moment, a somewhat less breathless version was posted: “Romans, The Pontiff left Rome this past night, taken in by pernicious advice.” The government, the ministers went on to say, would continue to function and ensure public order. “Romans!” it concluded, “have faith in us, show yourselves worthy of the name you bear, and respond with the highest standards of character to the calumnies of your enemies.” “Lettera lasciata di Pio Nono,” 24 e 25 novembre 1848, BSMC, FS.
15. Forbin-Janson à Bastide, 25 novembre 1848, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 988, ff. 150r–152r.
16. Bonaparte 1857, pp. 229–33.
17. Nor was Ferdinand helped by the portly papal nuncio in Naples, a man who was, reported the British diplomat, good-humored and kindhearted but “much engrossed with eating; I will not say that his belly is his God, but it is certainly his diocese.” Napier, chargé d’affaires, Naples, to Minto, 15 November 1847, in Curato 1970, vol. 1, p. 200.
18. Radice 1972, p. 84; Spaur 1851, pp. 47–49; Ward 1970, pp. 125–26; Candeloro 1972, pp. 70–71; Giovagnoli 1894, p. 26; Scirocco 1996, p. 7.
19. Rayneval à Bastide, Naples, 26 novembre 1848, MAEC, PAR; De Chambrun 1936, p. 352.
20. “Rome, Naples, and Sicily,” datelined Naples, December 2, TL, December 13, 1848; Radice 1972, pp. 84–85n.
CHAPTER 9: THE REACTIONARY TURN
1. De Ligne 1923, p. 319; Ghisalberti 1958, p. 56n; Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 73–83.
2. De Ligne 1929, pp. 186–88; De La Rochère 1853, pp. 176–77.
3. Cittadini 1989, p. 139; Pásztor 1966, p. 337. Antonelli’s actual title was “pro-secretary of state,” the “pro” referring in this case to the provisional nature of an appointment made outside Rome. Coppa 1990, p. 66. Antonelli sent the nuncios and ambassadors accredited to the Holy See word of his appointment on December 6. Antonelli a Mons. Giovanni Brunelli, nunzio apostolico, Madrid, ASV, ANM, b. 313, f. 3r; Antonelli a Domenico Pareto, Gaeta, 7 dicembre 1848, doc. 257 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 316.
4. The very fact that Antonelli’s traits were so different from the pope’s is what most recommended him to the pontiff. “Pius IX,” wrote Father Martina, the pope’s biographer, “emotional, impulsive, optimistic, little inclined to examine the big political problems in depth, found in Antonelli not only a man extremely able in practical matters, but also the expert, discreet politician, with that sense for judging men and their motives which too often the Pontiff himself lacked.” Dalla Torre 1979, pp. 144, 193; Martina 2004, p. 194; Martina 1974, p. 309.
5. Pásztor 1966, p. 340n; Montezomolo al Signor Presidente del Consiglio, Mola di Gaeta, 30 dicembre 1848, doc. 105 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, pp. 477–79.
6. Amid the uncertainty, journalists and diplomats spread the latest rumors of the pope’s imminent departure. The London Times went so far as to report, on December 5, that Pius had already left Gaeta and arrived in Malta, under British protection. “Arrival of the Pope in Malta,” TL, December 5, 1848. The Times published a story the next day confirming the pope’s arrival there.
7. Flint 2003, p. 118; Pirri 1949, p. 9. On the invitation of the Portuguese queen, see the letter of the nuncio in Portugal to the nuncio in Madrid: Lisbona, 23 dicembre 1848, ASV, ANM, b. 313, f. 42r.
8. Agulhon 1983, pp. 69–71; Milza 2004, pp. 152–53; Collins 1923, pp. 158–60.
9. Lespès 1852, pp. 247–49; Bastide 1858, pp. 211–13; Boyer 1956, pp. 244–45; Bastide à Harcourt, Paris, 27 novembre 1848, MAEN, RSS 274; Bastide 1858, pp. 199–201; De Chambrun 1936, pp. 357–64.
10. Leflon 1963, pp. 389–90.
11. De Chambrun 1936, p. 481. Bishops throughout France, hearing the news of the pope’s impending arrival, competed with offers of hospitality. Among those that the nuncio communicated to the pope was one from the French department of Vaucluse, where the governing council unanimously voted to invite the pope to reestablish the papal residence—after an absence of four and a half centuries—in Avignon. The papal nuncio communicated these offers to the pope through the secretary of state, writing from Paris on December 8. ASV, Segr. Stato, An. 1848–50, Rubr. 248, fasc. 2, ff. 83r–84r.
12. Louis Napoleon had spent a good part of his youth in Italy and, along with his brother, had gone off to join in the revolt against papal rule in 1831, during which his brother died. In late October 1848, the leader of the Catholic party in France met with Louis Napoleon to determine if he merited Catholic support. Confronted with his antipapal past, Louis Napoleon replied: “I understand your scruples….I have indeed taken part in insurrections against the Holy See, and I have had the misfortune to lose my brother thereby. But that is one of the deeds that I regret most. I shall repair it, if God spares my life….I am a Catholic, not perhaps as good a one as you, but still I am one, and I revere all the traditions.” Collins 1923, pp. 175–77; Choffat 2008, pp. 94–95.
13. As Tocqueville put it, Louis Napoleon was backed by his supporters from the elite “not because of any merits, but due to his presumed mediocrity. They believed they found in him an instrument which they could use at their discretion.” Tocqueville 1893, pp. 313–18. See also Bastide 1858, p. 191; Milza 2004, pp. 167–68; Choffat 2008, pp. 92–93, 102; McMillan 1991, pp. 32–35; Agulhon 1983, pp. 71–73; Yvert 2008, p. 107; Barrot 1876, pp. 28–29; Fraser 1896, p. 114. The text of Louis Napoleon’s letter is found in Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 54–55.
14. Rayneval, who had inherited the title of count on his father’s death a dozen years earlier, had long experience in Italy, having earlier served for five years as first secretary to the French embassy in Rome. He had been appointed French ambassador to the Kingdom of Naples only a few months before the pope’s surprising appearance at Gaeta. MAEC, PDI, 29 juin 1848. The same archival collection has other, undated documents recounting the diplomatic postings of Rayneval.
15. Blois 1854, pp. 23, 26; De Chambrun 1936, pp. 485–86, 492–94; Leflon 1963, pp. 396–97; Rayneval à Bastide, Naples, 7 décembre 1848, n. 49, MAEC, PAR; De Ligne 1929, pp. 180–81. To the Spanish ambassador, who tried to dissuade the pope from going to France by warning him against trusting in a republican government, Pius replied that in any case he had not intended to go to Paris. He was thinking, he said, of first going to Marseilles but only for a short time. The Spaniard urged him to take refuge in Majorca under Spanish protection.
16. Harcourt à Bastide, Gaëte, 2 décembre 1848, MAEN, RSS 409; Boyer 1956, p. 246; Rayneval à Bastide, Naples, 30 novembre 1848, MAEC, PAR.
17. The Sardinian ambassador was among the few who supported the French position that the pope seek compromise. But in early December, the Sardinian ambassador to Naples reported that Pius was now surrounded “by all those who had always reproached him for his path of reform.” Only by extracting the pope from Gaeta, and ideally having him come to Piedmont, thought the diplomat, could disaster be averted. Collobiano à Perrone, Naples, 4 décembre 1848, doc. 224 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 3, p. 219; Pareto a Perrone, Gaeta, 5 dicembre 1848, doc. 253 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 311.
18. Key 1898, p. 178. The quote is from Key’s letter dated December 1, 1848. Antonelli called on all the ambassadors to leave Rome and join the pope at Gaeta. When the Sardinian government initially balked at this move, their ambassador informed Turin that virtually all the other foreign envoys to Rome had gone to be with the pope. To remain in Rome would be viewed as a huge affront to the papacy. He too quickly joined his colleagues. Pareto a Perrone, Roma, 2 dicembre 1848, doc. 250 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 309. Antonelli’s circular to the foreign emissaries, dated Gaeta, 27 novembre 1848, is reproduced in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 310.
