The Pope Who Would Be King, page 46
6. Beghelli 1874, vol. 2, pp. 134–36; Loevinson 1902–4, vol. 1, p. 152; Bittard des Portes 1905, p. 52; Trevelyan 1907, p. 111; Beseghi 1946, vol. 2, p. 76.
7. Koelman 1963, vol. 1, pp. 243–46.
8. Vecchi 1851, p. 176; Trevelyan 1907, pp. 119, 141; Hoffstetter 1851, pp. 29–32; Loevinson 1902–4, vol. 2, pp. 226–27; Hibbert 1965, p. 50; Balleydier 1851, vol. 2, p. 34.
9. Trebiliani 1970; Beseghi 1946, vol. 2, pp. 66–67, 261–62; Hoffstetter 1851, p. 272; Facchini 1890, p. 171.
10. Boero 1850, pp. 272–73.
11. “I hope that it will be possible for you to convince the Roman court,” Drouyn advised, “to publish a Manifesto that, in reassuring [the Romans] against the possibility of the return of reaction, deprives the anarchists of their force and prevents all serious resistance on their part.” Rayneval à Drouyn, Naples, 24 avril 1849, MAEC, PAR; Drouyn à Harcourt, Paris, 25 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 274.
12. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 25 avril 1849, MAEC, PAR.
13. “One can be certain that every time we negotiate with people here, we will lose,” wrote Harcourt. “There is only one way to accomplish something, namely, to know clearly what we want and to declare clearly what we want to obtain. If we don’t act this way, we may well find ourselves one day in the situation of having come to reestablish the absolutism of the Papal States and leaving amid the curses of those same people who had called for our help.” Harcourt à Drouyn, Gaëte, 30 avril 1849, MAEN, RSS 410.
14. Forbin-Janson to Oudinot, Rome, April 26, 1849, quoted in Pierre 1878, pp. 79–80; James 1903, pp. 152–53.
15. Gaillard 1861, pp. 168–69; Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 27 avril 1849 MAEC, PAR; Lewis Cass, Jr., to John Clayton, Rome, April 27, 1849, in Stock 1933, pp. 32–33.
16. Lerro 1962; Pierre 1878, pp. 82–83; Trevelyan 1907, pp. 123–24; Loevinson 1902–4, vol. 1, p. 160; Vecchi 1911, pp. 81–82.
17. Thiry 1851, pp. 6–7; Bittard des Portes 1905, pp. 63–66; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 3, pp. 350–51; Rusconi 1879, p. 112. The Venetian envoy, Giovanni Castellani, describing public opinion in Rome at the time, reported, “I can assure you that in the Papal States no one wants the government of the priests, and everyone wants the pope.” Ghisalberti 1965, p. 170n.
18. Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 420–21.
19. This, at least, was the account that Rayneval later gave to Nassau Senior of the conversation. Senior 1871, vol. 2, pp. 123–24. See also Foramiti 1850, pp. 85–86; Bittard des Portes 1905, pp. 63–68; Boulangé 1851, pp. 18–19.
CHAPTER 13: THE FRENCH ATTACK
1. Text in Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 536–37.
2. Lecauchois-Féraud 1849, pp. 25–32; Vaillant 1851, pp. 7–11; Hoffstetter 1851, pp. 19–21; Torre 1851–52, vol. 2, pp. 28–34; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 3, pp. 354–57; Thiry 1851, pp. 9–11; Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 438–41; Key 1898, p. 197; Saffi 1898, pp. 291–94 (Saffi’s letters to his mother from Rome on April 30, 1849); Loevinson 1902–4, vol. 2, p. 198; Trevelyan 1907, pp. 125–34; Monsagrati 2014, pp. 108–10; Beseghi 1946, vol. 2, pp. 77–79; Rossi 2001, pp. 309–12. On April 30 Pius IX issued a message addressed “to his most beloved subjects” in the Papal States. He offered an explanation of his decision to rely on foreign armies to return him to power in Rome: “The many evils that afflict the temporal Dominion of the Holy See…have persuaded us to turn to all the powers invoking from them the opportune relief.” Doc. 102 in Cittadini 1968, p. 140. For its part, the Roman Republic likewise justified its defense as doing the Lord’s work. On the day of the French assault, Mazzini’s government put out a proclamation: “He who dies for the fatherland carries out his duty as a man and as a Christian. Temporal rule by the priests is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.” Repubblica romana 1849, p. 544.
3. Freeborn to Palmerston, Rome, May 1, 1849, doc. 23 in Parliament 1851, p. 16; Candeloro 1972, pp. 444–45; Cass to Clayton, Rome, May 8, 1849, in Stock 1933, p. 36.
4. Proia 2010; Bittard des Portes 1905, p. 98; Giorcelli 2000, p. 79n; Montesi 2002, pp. 152–54; Whitehouse 1906.
5. Christine Tivulze, of Belgiojoso, to Miss Fuller, Comitato di Soccorso pei Feriti, April 30, 1849, in Marraro 1944, p. 498. That same day the republican government put out a call for women to help tend the wounded, expressing satisfaction at all the women who had already volunteered. It concluded by specifying that “we are looking, above all, for women of robust health.” “Avis aux femmes de Rome,” Moniteur romain du 30 avril, in République romaine 1849, pp. 81–82.
6. “The State of Europe,” TL, May 14, 1849; Repubblica romana 1849, p. 620.
7. Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 566–67; Beghelli 1874, vol. 2, pp. 182–83; the text of the notarized French soldiers’ statement, dated May 5, 1849, is published as doc. 4 in Del Vecchio 1849, pp. 133–34.
8. Ghisalberti 1965, p. 160.
9. Repubblica romana 1849, p. 627; Del Vecchio 1849, p. 42; Lazzarini 1899, pp. 113–14; Key 1898, p. 198; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 76–77.
10. Key 1898, pp. 197–99; Freeborn to Palmerston, Rome, May 5, 1849, doc. 28 in Parliament 1851, p. 19; James 1903, pp. 156–57.
11. Lazzarini 1899, pp. 110–12; Severini 2002c, p. 122; James 1903, p. 155; Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 499–500; Boero 1850, pp. 270–72; Rocca 2011, pp. 155–59. Letters from convents to the cardinal vicar of Rome telling of these visits can be found in ASVR, Segreteria, Atti, b. 62, fasc. 3. Priests thought to be spying for the pope’s foreign armies were at risk of their lives, and not a few were killed in these weeks. Roncalli 1997, pp. 113, 118; Severini 2002a, pp. 114–15; Monsagrati 2014, pp. 89–91. The British ambassador to Florence, reporting on events in Rome at the time, informed Lord Palmerston that “hatred of Priestly Government seems to be deeply rooted in the minds of the great mass of the people.” He added, “The dislike of the cardinals and priests is unbounded.” George Hamilton to Viscount Palmerston, Florence, May 3, 1849, doc. 25 in Parliament 1851, p. 17.
12. Le préfet maritime, Toulon, au ministre de la marine, 4 mai 1849, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 993, ff. 24r–24v; Bittard des Portes 1905, pp. 103–6; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, p. 76.
13. Séance du 7 mai 1849, Assemblée nationale 1849a, pp. 469–90; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 47–51; Barrot 1876, pp. 208–11; Lesseps 1849, pp. 7–8.
14. Repubblica romana 1849, p. 576; Saffi 1898, p. 307.
15. D’Ambrosio 1852, p. 22; Key 1898, p. 198; Ferdinando II a Pio IX, Albano, 5 maggio 1849, in Cittadini 1968, pp. 138–39.
16. Farini 1850–53, vol. 4, pp. 85–86. For the gloss the Neapolitans tried to put on the encounter, see the account of a Neapolitan officer in Piscicelli 1978, pp. 1–3; and Hoffstetter 1851, pp. 28–59. That Ferdinand was putting out glowing stories of his victories over Garibaldi’s “bands” is evident from Rayneval’s reports from Gaeta. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 20 mai 1849, MAEC, PAR. Captain Key wrote on May 12, following his visit to Ferdinand’s camp: “The Neapolitan army at Albano and Velletri are in great fear of Garibaldi, and very anxious to join their forces with the French.” Commander Key to Vice-Admiral Parker, aboard Bulldog, Palo, May 12, 1849, in Parliament 1851, pp. 29–31.
17. Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 628–29; Farini 1850–53, vol. 4, p. 52.
18. Note des plénipotentiaires Français au Cardinal Antonelli, Gaëte, 3 mai 1849, signed Harcourt and Rayneval, MAEC, PAR.
19. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 3 mai 1849, MAEC, PAR.
20. Harcourt à Drouyn, Mola-de-Gaëte, 4 mai 1849, n. 46, MAEN, RSS 410.
21. Drouyn à Oudinot, Paris, 10 mai 1849, MAEN, RSS 537 bis; Télégraphie, Drouyn à Oudinot, Paris, 10 mai 1849, MAEN, RSS 537 bis.
22. Antonelli a Viale, Gaeta, 7 maggio 1849, ASV, ANV, b. 330, ff. 112r–112v.
23. Viale a Antonelli, Vienna, 3 maggio 1849, ASV, ANV, b. 322, f. 25r; Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 4 mai 1849, doc. 60 in Blaas 1973, pp. 196–97. King Ferdinand was meanwhile doing his part, reported Esterházy, leading eight thousand Neapolitan troops across the border, headed north. The king’s goal, Esterházy explained in a dispatch to Vienna, was “to use his presence on Roman territory to counterbalance the equivocal attitude of the French army.”
24. The Austrian commander Marshal Franz von Wimpffen issued a proclamation: “Residents of the Papal States! In execution of the supreme orders received from Field Marshal Count Radetzky, I have entered your territory with the imperial troops. I come, together with the special commissioner of His Holiness, to restore the legitimate government of His Holiness Pius IX, who was overthrown by a perverse faction.” On May 5, as the Austrian army crossed into Tuscany, its commander, Baron D’Aspre, addressed a similar proclamation to the people: “Tuscany! I have entered your territory with the troops under my command, to defend the rights of your legitimate Sovereign…Grand Duke Leopold II….Tuscans! A perverse faction had overthrown public order among you…to satisfy its private objects, its criminal passions, the yoke of the most insufferable anarchy….Let no idea of resistance enter your minds, as it would place me in the disagreeable and hard necessity of using force.” The English translation appears in “Tuscany,” TL, May 16, 1849. For the text of Wimpffen’s Bologna declaration, see Foramiti 1850, pp. 95–96. On the assault on Bologna, see Torre 1851–52, vol. 2, pp. 143–53, 381; Pisacane 1851, pp. 263–65.
25. Diesbach 1998, pp. 23–41.
26. “The situation of the French expedition,” TL, May 11, 1849; “France,” TL, May 14, 1849. The text of the Assembly debate that day can be found in Assemblée nationale 1849a, pp. 549–67.
27. “You speak of war,” the Austrian ambassador went on to tell Drouyn, “but I ask you, against whom? Against us? But what for? The Pope has approached us as he has you to help him against the anarchists. We are in the midst of doing this, frankly, sincerely, and without any ulterior motive….Is this a cause for war? I cannot think so. It must then be the pope whom you want to wage war against. But that is an eventuality that does not even merit serious examination. The fact is that in dissimulating the true mission of the expedition to Civitavecchia at the National Assembly, you have placed yourselves in an untenable position.” Hübner à Schwarzenberg, Paris, 11 mai 1849, doc. 75 in Blaas 1973, pp. 235–37.
28. Rayneval à Drouyn, Terracina, 10 mai 1849, MAEC, PAR; Key 1898, pp. 199–200.
29. “I told him,” Drouyn wrote to Oudinot, explaining Lesseps’s mission, “to maintain the most intimate and confidential relations with you, and I ask you to do all you can to facilitate the accomplishment of the delicate task he has been given.” Drouyn added that the Neapolitan army’s intervention in the south of the Papal States and the expected intervention of the Austrians from the north were an unfortunate complication. Oudinot was to take care that no one think that there was any coordination between the French army and the others, adding: “I do not need to tell you the many serious disadvantages that would result.” Drouyn à Oudinot, Paris, 8 mai 1849, MAEN, RSS 537 bis; Edgar-Bonnet 1951, pp. 88–89. Lesseps had traveled on a naval ship put at his disposal. With him was a member of the Roman Constituent Assembly whom Drouyn thought would help him establish relations with the triumvirate, a move that was not destined to make a good impression on the pope. Diesbach 1998, pp. 91–92.
30. Barrot 1876, p. 219.
31. Dépêche télégraphique, Oudinot à Drouyn, Maglianella, 14 mai 1849, MAEC, CP, Rome, vol. 993, ff. 57r–57v. Given all the mixed signals, the French officers could be forgiven if they were not entirely sure who exactly their enemy was. A British reporter was dining with French officers at their camp outside Rome when one of their comrades rushed in. “Gentlemen,” exclaimed the officer excitedly, although inaccurately, “I have the honor to inform you that the destination of our expedition is changed. We are here now to defend the Roman Republic….We are at war with Austria and Naples!” Frantic cheers met the news, as the officers stood up, shouting “Vive la République!” “The Intervention in the Papal States,” TL, May 22, 1849; Antonini a Cariati, Parigi, 15 maggio 1849, doc. IX in Cipolletta 1863, p. 30.
CHAPTER 14: NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH
1. Thiry 1851, pp. 13–14; Vaillant 1851, p. 13; Boulangé 1851, pp. 44–47; Hibbert 1965, p. 65; “French Intervention in the Roman States,” TL, May 29, 1849; “The French Intervention in the Papal States,” TL, June 6, 1849. The term malaria comes from the Italian for “bad air,” and indeed at the time the mosquito-borne source of the disease was unknown. Thousands were affected in Rome each summer, the season beginning in June and at its worst from July to October. Desmarie 1860, pp. 51–58; Niel 1961, p. 478; Tommasi-Crudeli 1892, pp. 53–80; Hoolihan 1989, p. 481.
2. Pisacane 1849, pp. 14–15; Pisacane 1851, pp. 301–2; Scirocco 1996, p. 19; Demarco 1944, p. 140; Gouraud 1852, pp. 271–73; Pierre 1878, p. 95; Roselli 1853, pp. 56–60; Gabussi 1851–52, vol. 3, p. 404n; Rossi 2001, p. 140; Liedekerke 1949, p. 185; Repubblica romana 1849, pp. 4–8; Torre 1851–52, vol. 2, pp. 372–77; Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 22 mai 1849, MAEC, PAR.
3. Schwarzenberg à Esterházy, Vienne, 19 mai 1849, doc. 74 in Blaas 1973, pp. 226–29.
4. Lesseps à Drouyn, Rome, 16 mai 1849, doc. 4 in Lesseps 1849, pp. 75–77; Repubblica romana 1849, p. 727.
5. Mazzini à Lesseps, Rome, 19 mai 1849, doc. 12 in Lesseps 1849, pp. 90–91. The text of the proposed accord is found in République romaine 1849, pp. 104–5.
6. Oudinot à Lesseps, Villa Santucci, 21 mai 1849, doc. 18 in Lesseps 1849, pp. 96–97. On the French elections, see Pierre 1878, pp. 137–47; Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 98–101; Agulhon 1983, pp. 75–78; Milza 2004, pp. 173–75; Calman 1922, pp. 307–9; Key 1898, pp. 201–2.
7. Giannini 2009, p. 5; Brown to Clayton, Rome, May 19, 1849, in Stock 1945, pp. 173–75.
8. Matsumoto-Best 2003, p. 75. Individuals who failed to take part in confession at least once each year risked excommunication. Moroni 1851, pp. 239–48.
9. Roncalli 1997, p. 141; Boero 1850, pp. 251–53; Torre 1851–52, vol. 2, p. 359; Lancellotti 1862, p. 150; Spada 1868–69, vol. 3, pp. 555–57; “Proclamation sur les confessionnaux,” Moniteur romain du 21 mai, in République romaine 1849, pp. 114–16. It would appear unlikely that the confessionals that had been removed were in any condition to be returned to use in the churches.
10. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 18 mai 1849, n. 121, MAEC, PAR.
11. Liedekerke à Monsieur le Ministre, Mola-de-Gaëte, 20 mai 1849, doc. XCV in Liedekerke 1949, p. 184.
12. Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 20 mai 1849, n. 125, MAEC, PAR; Capograssi 1941, pp. 133–40; Rayneval à Drouyn, Gaëte, 22 mai 1849, n. 127, MAEC, PAR; De Ligne 1929, p. 191.
13. Diesbach 1998, pp. 94–95.
14. Ghisalberti 1965, pp. 146–47. Lesseps’s remarks on Mazzini as a vulgar man are found in his May 20 report to Drouyn. Diesbach 1998, p. 99; Lesseps 1849, p. 32; Vecchi 1851, pp. 101–4; Bittard des Portes 1905, p. 171. In characterizing Mazzini, Lesseps remarked, “Il voudrait régénérer les hommes en passant sur des ruines e sur des cadavres.” It was a charge commonly made against Mazzini, even by some of his compatriots. Francesco Guerrazzi, an old follower of his who had become head of the short-lived republican government in Tuscany earlier in 1849, once told him: “You have sent your young friends to die in Italy, yet your head remains on your shoulders.” Ghisalberti 1965, p. 144. Lesseps also suspected Mazzini of favoring a religious schism in Italy, seeking to draw Italians away from the Catholic Church into a kind of Protestantism.
15. Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 120–21, 126; Lesseps 1849, p. 87; Oudinot à Lesseps, 22 mai 1849, in Lesseps 1849, pp. 151–52. Mazzini wrote a letter to his mother reflecting his sense of isolation and betrayal: “It is truly shameful,” complained the republican champion, “that while we hold on against three Powers, the rest of Italy does nothing.” Severini 2011, p. 145n.
16. Lesseps 1849, pp. 26–28; Humphreys 1956, pp. 24–26.
17. Lesseps 1849, pp. 34–35; Lesseps au Triumvirat, Villa Santucci, 26 mai 1849, doc. 28 in Lesseps 1849, pp. 112–13. On May 27 Rayneval arrived at the French headquarters and spent four hours in uncomfortable conversation with Lesseps. “Everyone is against him,” observed Rayneval. Generals and soldiers alike were angry at him for holding them back. Rayneval à Lesseps, Quartier Général sous Rome, 27 mai 1849, joint au no. 130, MAEC, PAR; Rayneval à Drouyn, Quartier Général sous Rome, 27 mai 1849, n. 130, MAEC, PAR. Harcourt made similar points from Gaeta in his letter to Drouyn a few days later. Harcourt à Drouyn, Gaëte, 30 mai 1849, MAEN, RSS 410.
18. Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 23 mai 1849, docs. 78 and 80 in Blaas 1973, pp. 240–43, 249–50.
19. Esterházy à Schwarzenberg, Gaëte, 24 mai 1849, doc. 82 in Blaas 1973, pp. 252–54.
20. He added, “True, the pope is more tractable, but then the others do not let him realize that which was hoped.” Balbo al ministro degli affari esteri, Mola di Gaeta, 28 maggio 1849, doc. 120 in DRS 1949–51, vol. 2, p. 500.
21. Schwarzenberg à Esterházy, Vienne, 31 mai 1849, doc. 89 in Blaas 1973, p. 265.
22. Bourgeois and Clermont 1907, pp. 101–5.
23. Report to the ministère de la marine et des colonies, Ancône, 27 mai 1849, République romaine 1849, pp. 127–28.
24. Schwarzenberg à Esterházy, Vienne, 31 mai 1849, doc. 86 in Blaas 1973, pp. 260–63. That the desirability of having the pope move to Bologna, under Austrian control, was being discussed at the time in confidential discussions between Schwarzenberg and the papal nuncio in Vienna is clear from Schwarzenberg to Esterházy, Vienne, 31 mai 1849, doc. 88 in Blaas 1973, p. 265.
