The Pope Who Would Be King, page 45
29. Rusconi 1879, pp. 40–42; Foramiti 1850, p. 52; Demarco 1944, p. 95; Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 3–5; Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, p. 221. Garibaldi recalls in his memoirs that due to a flare-up of his rheumatism, he had to be carried into that historic session of the Assembly on the shoulders of his assistant. Garibaldi 1888, p. 222.
30. Foramiti 1850, pp. 53–54.
31. Cittadini 1968, p. 281; Nicholas Brown to James Buchanan, Rome, February 12, 1849, in Stock 1945, p. 156; République romaine 1849, pp. 5–6; Repubblica romana 1849, p. 83.
32. Esterházy’s account of his conversation with the pope is found in Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 11 février 1849, doc. 20 in Blaas 1973, pp. 77–81. His earlier reports are found in his letters to Schwarzenberg dated 10 and 11 février 1849, docs. 18 and 19 in Blaas 1973, pp. 72–77. “Regardless of the strength of religious interests there,” the pope explained to Rayneval, the French ambassador to Naples, at their February 14 meeting, “France cannot fight in Rome the same principle which was the basis of the government in Paris.” The pope had good reason to doubt that the French would help him. Only the previous month France had adopted a new constitution. The fifth article of its preamble pronounced that it would “never employ its forces against the freedom of any people.” As for Naples, the pope explained that while he appreciated Ferdinand’s generous support, he had no confidence in the king’s ability to take the military action needed to restore him to Rome. Still less, the pope added, could he count on the aid that Spain was offering. He appreciated the Catholic devotion of the Spanish court but doubted Spain’s military capacity. Rayneval à Drouyn, Naples, 14 février 1849, n. 72, MAEC, PAR.
The pope’s doubts about Spain’s capacity to help reflected a more widespread view. “Spain, with the munificent liberality which generally accompanies those deeply in debt, and who have in reality nothing to give,” the London Times Naples correspondent had written in late December, “has instructed her Minister to offer her fleet, her armies, and her treasury to His Holiness. Such generosity has touched the old man’s heart.” “Rome, Naples, and Sicily,” datelined Naples, December 21, TL, January 3, 1849. The text of the French constitution adopted on November 4, 1848, is found at http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-de-1848–iie-republique.5106.html.
33. Harcourt à Drouyn, Gaëte, 14 février 1849, MAEN, RSS 410; Antonelli al nunzio apostolico, Vienna, Gaeta, 14 febbraio 1849, ASV, ANV, b. 330, ff. 34r–35r; Liedekerke à Monsieur le Ministre, Molo-de-Gaëte, 16 février 1849, doc. LXXVII in Liedekerke 1949, pp. 156–57. The copy of the papal protest sent to Madrid can be found at ASV, ANM, b. 313, f. 111r; a published version can be found in Rusconi 1879, pp. 49–50. The copy of the papal call for four-power intervention that was sent to Vienna is found in ASV, ANV, b. 330, ff. 40r–45r.
When Vincenzo Gioberti, the Sardinian prime minister and a priest himself, learned that the pope had snubbed his government despite the fact that it boasted Italy’s largest and strongest army, he was irate. “The Roman court,” he wrote to his envoy in Gaeta, “does not know its true friends….The Gaeta government, rebuffing any ideas of reconciliation, and putting in their place only vendetta and blood, seems not to realize that it is repudiating Christ’s teachings, and substituting those of Mohammed.” Sardinia would never permit Austrian troops to intervene in Roman affairs, threatened Gioberti. “We have a hundred thousand men who can fight against the Germans in the Papal States.” The pope, though, was by now dead set against Sardinia, regarding Gioberti as a renegade priest and a dangerous apostle of Italian unity. Rayneval à Drouyn, Naples, 24 février 1849, n. 77, MAEC, PAR.
34. Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 16 février 1849, doc. 15 in Blaas 1973, p. 90; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 3, p. 123. Schwarzenberg à Esterházy, Vienne, 25 février 1849, doc. 30 in Blaas 1973, pp. 108–9; Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 26 février 1849, doc. 31 in Blaas 1973, pp. 113–15.
35. In Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 240–41.
36. On the French case, see “Secularization and the Fate of Church Bells During the Revolution,” Newberry Library, at http://publications.newberry.org/frenchpamphlets/?p=1130.
37. Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 19–20, 32, 95–101; Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 221–22; Roncalli 1997, p. 86; Boero 1850, pp. 261–62; Demarco 1944, pp. 107–10; République romaine 1849, pp. 10–15; Koelman 1963, vol. 1, pp. 205–7. The cardinal vicar archives of Rome contain a copy of the printed circular sent on February 19 to all religious bodies instructing them to refuse to cooperate in the republic’s attempts to conduct an inventory of their property. ASVR, Decreta, 1849, f. 65v—65r.
38. Martina 2000, p. 360. Antonelli’s notes to the nuncios in Madrid and Naples on these developments can be found at ASV, ANM, b. 313, f. 131r and ASV, ANN, b. 392, f. 10r; his protest to the diplomatic corps at ASV, ANN, b. 392, f. 4r.
CHAPTER 11: PRESSURING THE POPE
1. Harcourt sent Paris a copy of the Roman Republic’s foreign minister’s response to the “calumnies” against the Roman Republic in early March. Harcourt à Drouyn, Gaëte, 3 mars 1849, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 989, ff. 72r–74r; Miraglia 1850, pp. 160–61; République romaine 1849, p. 28; Foramiti 1850, pp. 65–66, 69–70; Fiorentino 1999, p. 36n.
2. Roncalli 1997, pp. 93, 99, 103; Candeloro 1972, p. 433.
3. Repubblica romana 1849, p. 155; Diurno 1849, p. 7.
4. Bianchi 1869, vol. 6, pp. 451–52; Ghisalberti 1965, pp. 142–43n.
5. Drouyn à Harcourt, Paris, 6 mars 1849, MAEN, RSS 274. The latter quote is from a letter written the same day to Harcourt, informing him that Rayneval would also represent France at the Gaeta conference. Drouyn had replaced Bastide as French minister of foreign affairs in late December 1848. Barrot 1876, p. 29.
6. Schwarzenberg à Esterházy, Olmütz, 5 mars 1849, doc. 35 in Blaas 1973, pp. 128–31.
7. The meeting of the Austrian ambassador with the French foreign minister is recounted both from the French side (Drouyn à de la Cour, Paris, 13 mars 1849, MAEN, Vienne, Article 33, ff. 67r–70r) and from the Austrian side (Thom à Schwarzenberg, Paris, 14 mars 1849, doc. 48 in Blaas 1973, pp. 161–64). On April 13, the day after the dramatic meeting, the French foreign minister outlined the French position: best would be some kind of peaceful negotiation leading to an agreement between the pope and his subjects. Second-best would be a revolt by the people of the Papal States on behalf of the pope. Only if that too were not forthcoming should military action be resorted to, and in such an eventuality intervention by an all-Italian—Sardinian and Neapolitan—force would be greatly preferable. Of all possible solutions, what was least desirable was any role for the Austrian army. 13 mars 1849, MAEC, CP, Espagne, vol. 834, ff. 317r–320r.
8. In a typical clerical view, one papal partisan of the time, while admitting Mazzini’s “vast intelligence,” added immediately that it was “an intelligence impregnated with evil.” For Mazzini, he wrote, “humanity is nothing, the idea is everything.” “You have sent your young friends to die in Italy,” Francesco Guerrazzi, leader of the short-lived republican government of Tuscany and onetime political ally of Mazzini, told him accusingly on his return to Florence earlier in 1849. Ghisalberti 1965, p. 144.
9. The William Lloyd Garrison quotes are drawn from Mack Smith 1994, p. 53.
10. In Mack Smith 1994, p. 31.
11. King 1911, pp. 331–37.
12. Fuller 1856, p. 367; Fuller 1988, p. 210.
13. Ghisalberti 1965, p. 144; Arrigoni 1996, p. 145n; Vecchi 1851, pp. 101–4; Vecchi 1911, pp. 36–37; Balleydier 1851, vol. 1, pp. 363–65. The first quote is from Farini (1850–53, vol. 3, pp. 275–76). Bachofen’s remarks are quoted in Arrigoni 1996, 145n.
14. Saffi 1898, pp. 217–18.
15. Fuller 1988, p. 5:201; Ghisalberti 1965, pp. 150–51; Severini 2011, p. 43.
16. Rusconi 1879, pp. 73–76; D’Ambrosio 1852, p. 10; Farini 1850–53, vol. 3, pp. 307–8; Johnston 1901, pp. 248–49.
17. Arrigoni 1996, pp. 145–47; Martina 2000, p. 356; République romaine 1849, pp. 35–36; Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 260–61; Giannini 2009, p. 4; Saffi 1898, pp. 182, 246–48; Bratti 1903, p. 71; Vecchi 1851, pp. 392–93. With his appointment, noted the liberal patriot, Farini, no friend of the republican prophet, Mazzini became the absolute ruler of Rome. “The legislative assembly remained, but he governs the assembly and the people through flattery, by sectarian bands, with an unperturbed fanaticism which through his courage and his faith reassures the weak and the simple. He governs with the aid of those faithful to him, with the hope of worldwide revolts, through his prophecies.” The Roman revolution, concluded Farini, “is incarnated in Mazzini.” Farini 1850–53, vol. 3, p. 313.
18. Lazzarini 1899, p. 66.
19. Antonelli al nunzio di Madrid, Gaeta, 14 marzo 1849, ASV, ANM, b. 313, ff. 551r–551v; Antonelli al nunzio di Vienna, Gaeta, 26 marzo 1849, ASV, ANV, b. 330, ff. 85r–86r; Antonelli al nunzio di Madrid, Gaeta, 26 marzo 1849, ASV, ANM, b. 313, ff. 101r–102r. The April 23 Antonelli letter, to the nuncio in Lisbon, is quoted in Jankowiak 2008, p. 132n.
20. Martini al Ill.mo Signore, Gaeta, 26 marzo 1849, doc. 71 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 451; Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 26 mars 1849, doc. 46 in Blaas 1973, pp. 154–56.
21. Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 24 mars 1849, doc. 45 in Blaas 1973, pp. 152–53; Martini al Ill.mo Signore, Gaeta, 26 marzo 1849, doc. 71 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 453; Ralph Abercrombie to Viscount Palmerston, Turin, April 4, 1849, Palmerston Papers online.
22. Mazzini, Roma, 5 aprile 1849, in Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 282–86.
23. Drouyn was displeased when he learned that Antonelli insisted on chairing the four-power conference. He did not believe Antonelli should even be attending the conference, whose discussion would be constrained by his presence. Drouyn à Harcourt, Paris, 15 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 274.
24. Harcourt à Drouyn, Mola di Gaeta, 29 mars 1849, MAEN, RSS 410.
25. The French delegation wrote up the minutes of the session, but there was one paragraph of their draft that the other ambassadors insisted be deleted. It noted the French recommendation that in returning to Rome, the pope pledged to keep the constitution and his reforms. Neither Cardinal Antonelli nor any of the other three envoys would agree to this. The pope, whose goodness and concern for the welfare of his people was beyond doubt, they argued, could not have foreign powers dictate to him how to run his own land. He could be counted on to do what was right once he was back in Rome. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 31 mars 1849, MAEC, PAR; Capograssi 1941, pp. 101–7; Druidi 1958, p. 231; Ludolf a Cariati, Gaeta, 2 aprile 1849, doc. IIc in Cipolletta 1863, pp. 10–11; De Ligne 1929, p. 182; Meriggi 2006.
26. Antonelli went on to update his litany of the outrages under way in Rome, claiming that even the Sistine Chapel had been sacked. (It hadn’t.) He urged the nuncio in Vienna to employ all his “zeal and energy to remove all further pernicious delays to the requested armed intervention.” Antonelli al nunzio di Vienna, Gaeta, 2 aprile 1849, ASV, ANV, b. 330, ff. 91r–92r.
27. Martina 2000, pp. 362–64; Agresti 1904, pp. 42–43; Roncalli 1997, pp. 101–2; Lazzarini 1899, pp. 71–72.
28. Boyer 1956, p. 250.
29. Harcourt à Drouyn, Mola de Gaëte, 13 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 410.
30. Rayneval à Drouyn, Naples, 19 avril 1849, MAEC, PAR.
31. Antonelli al nunzio di Madrid, Gaeta, 19 aprile 1849, ASV, ANM, b. 313, ff. 812r–813v.
32. The Italian text of the papal allocution is reproduced in Blois 1854, pp. 108–28. An English translation is found in Parliament 1851, pp. 73–84; Rayneval à Drouyn, Naples, 19 avril 1849, n. 99, MAEC, PAR. The pope’s allocution was remarkable in being one of the earliest attempts to discredit the church’s enemies by linking them to communism. The first Communist League had been formed in London only two years earlier, and its mention by the pope—who seems unlikely to have been so familiar with the still small and obscure workingmen’s association in England whose manifesto Marx and Engels had recently drafted—seems to reflect some other, more sophisticated hand. The reforms that the troublemakers in Rome were demanding, said the pope, “have no other object in view than to foment incessant agitation; that all the principles of justice, virtue, honor, and religion may be everywhere totally swept away, and the horrible and most lamentable system which they style Socialism or Communism, entirely adverse as it is even to reason and the law of nature, may, to the greatest detriment and ruin of the whole of human society, in all directions, be spread and propagated, and prevail everywhere.” Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 30–31; Lodolini 1970, pp. 138–40; Viaene 2001, p. 499.
33. Falloux 1888, pp. 391–99, 444–45; Barrot 1876, p. 145.
34. In a report to his prime minister, the Austrian ambassador in Paris explained the sudden shift in the French position. The decision was taken on April 14 in a heated five-hour cabinet meeting pitting Falloux against Drouyn. Falloux threatened to resign if France did not answer the pope’s call. Knowing of the disaster that had befallen his predecessor when the pope failed to appear on French soil, Louis Napoleon became convinced that being hailed as the pope’s savior and consolidating Catholic support would help pave his path to glory. But the French president nonetheless remained troubled. “As the son of revolution and representing, nominally at least, the republican regime of France,” reported the Austrian ambassador, “Louis Bonaparte felt a great repugnance about going to make war in Rome against a revolution and a republic.” Hübner à Schwarzenberg, Paris, 18 avril 1849, Paris, doc. 74, allegato B, in Blaas 1973, pp. 229–32.
35. Pierre 1878, pp. 68–74; Jolicoeur 2011, p. 518; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, p. 11; Collins 1923, pp. 216–17; Gaillard 1861, pp. 159–61; Bittard des Portes 1905, pp. 10–12; Barrot 1876, pp. 193–99; Calman 1922, pp. 308–9.
36. The Austrian ambassador had a dim opinion of the French foreign minister. Drouyn, he told Schwarzenberg, had argued against sending French troops to Italy. He was “very unhappy that in the cabinet the opinion of his colleagues demanding intervention prevailed over his, and was clearly suffering. He attributed his indisposition to the influence of a recent case of cholera, but I believe that it was the natural result of his political situation, caught between a defeat suffered in the cabinet and the need to conduct a battle to support the mission in the assembly.” Il consigliere di Legazione Hübner à Schwarzenberg, Paris, 18 avril 1849, doc. 260, allegato A, in Filipuzzi 1961, vol. 2, pp. 81–84. A new epidemic of cholera had broken out in Paris in the spring. Falloux 1888, p. 453. Austria’s military situation at the time was complicated by the fact that the revolt in Hungary was still very much alive. Engel-Janosi 1950, pp. 144–45.
37. Drouyn à Harcourt, Paris, 18 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 274.
38. Drouyn à Oudinot, Paris, 18 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 537 bis.
39. Drouyn à Oudinot, Paris, 18 avril 1849, Particulière e confidentielle, MAEN, RSS 537 bis. That same day Drouyn summoned the Austrian envoy to tell him something of the instructions he had just sent to Oudinot. He told him that the French would make no complaint if the Austrian army took Bologna, and that they would issue only the mildest of complaints if the Austrian army moved farther into the northern provinces of the Papal States. Il consigliere di Legazione Hübner à Schwarzenberg, Paris, 18 avril 1849, doc. 260, allegato B, in Filipuzzi 1961, vol. 2, p. 84.
40. Thiry 1851, p. 3; Barrot 1876, pp. 202–3; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 24–25.
CHAPTER 12: THE FRIENDLY ARMY
1. Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 371–79; Clough 1888, p. 146; Lancellotti 1862, pp. 9, 117; République romaine 1849, pp. 59–61.
2. Curiously, Clough ended his letter by concluding, “It is a most respectable republic; it really (ipse dixit) thought of getting a monarch, but couldn’t find one to suit.” Clough to Palgrave, Rome, 23 April 1849, in Clough 1888, pp. 147–49.
3. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 30 avril 1849, MAEC, PAR; Candeloro 1972, p. 424. Schwarzenberg’s letter informing the British of his ordering of Austrian troops into Tuscany and the Papal States, and giving its justification, can be found in Schwarzenberg to Count Collerato, Vienne, 29 avril 1849, in Parliament 1851, p. 21. King Ferdinand wrote the pope from Terracina on April 29 to report having hoisted the papal flag at the fort there and having taken down the republic’s. Ferdinando II a sua Santità Pio IX, Terracina, 29 aprile 1849, in Cittadini 1968, pp. 137–38.
4. Lesseps 1849, pp. 9–10; Mannucci 1850, pp. 119–31; Boulangé 1851, pp. 9–16; A. Cialdi, comandante del corpo, Marineria militare, Civitavecchia, al ministro della guerra, Roma, 24 aprile 1849 and 25 aprile 1849, docs. LII and LIII in Torre 1851–52, vol. 1, pp. 343–45; Palomba, console generale d’Austria a Civitavecchia, a Schwarzenberg, 25 aprile 1849, doc. 55 in Blaas 1973, pp. 186–88; U.S. consul, Civitavecchia, to Nicholas Brown, April 25, 1849, in Rush Hawkins Papers, vol. 4, John Hay Library, Brown University; Torre 1851–52, vol. 1, pp. 341–43; “State of Rome,” TL, May 8, 1849; Marraro 1943, pp. 472–73.
5. Koelman 1963, vol. 1, p. 261; Roncalli 1997, pp. 107–8; République romaine 1849, pp. 65–66; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 3, pp. 332–37.
