XIX. INEFFECTUAL STRUGGLES…

XIX. INEFFECTUAL STRUGGLES

[Sidenote: [1815-1848 A.D.]]

In the plenitude of his despotic authority, Napoleon had destroyed all the former order of things. He had trampled down the ancient republics, and obliterated even the names of the most time-honoured principalities. The queenly splendour of Venice had not saved the most glorious of republics from his iron grasp. Lucca had found no safety in those republican institutions, the origin of which is lost in the obscurity of remote antiquity. Imperial Rome herself had attracted no respect to the throne of the vicegerent of heaven upon earth. The pontiff, from whose hands Napoleon had received the chrism that gave him the sacred character of an anointed king, was carried away a prisoner under an escort of French dragoons.

No national government was left. In the worst days of foreign invasion the pontiff, with bitter truth, said to the doge of Venice, “There is nothing Italian left in Italy except my tiara and your ducal hat.” Under the dominion of Napoleon, both the tiara and the ducal hat were gone. The pope was a prisoner in France, and Venice was a province of the emperor’s Italian kingdom. The only remnant of Italian nationality--and, placed on the head of a stranger, it could scarcely be said to belong to Italy--was the Lombards’ iron crown. Such was the condition of Italy with which the sovereigns at Paris, and in the congress of Vienna, had to deal.[b]

[Sidenote: [1815-1818 A.D.]]

The restoration of the legitimate dynasties, partially effected in 1814, was completed the following year; and all the most important relations of the Italian states were fixed in the course of that period, by successive acts of the congress of Vienna.

The house of Austria received its ancient territories of the Milanese and Mantua; but to these were added Venice and all its mainland provinces, together with those districts which Napoleon had taken from the Grisons. In this manner, profiting by deeds of spoliation which he had professedly taken up arms to avenge, the emperor Francis became master of all Lombardy, as far westward as the Ticino, and as far south as the Po: and on the 7th of April, 1815, he proclaimed the erection of these territories, extending eastward to the mountains forming the right bank of the Isonzo, into a monarchical state called the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom.

The king of Sardinia [Victor Emmanuel I], who still retained his insular dominion, received back Piedmont and Savoy; while in addition to these, by a resolution which excited deep indignation in Italy, and was charged against the English government as a violation of express pledges, were given all the provinces of the Genoese Republic, which their new ruler erected into a duchy. The female line of the house of Este, represented by Francis, grandson of the last duke Ercole, and son of the archduke Ferdinand of Austria, received, as an independent ducal state, the principalities of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola, to which Massa-Carrara was soon added.

Lucca, proclaimed a duchy, passed to the infanta Maria Louisa, formerly queen of Etruria: but, the court of Madrid having protested against the resolution which disallowed the claims of that princess to the principality of Parma, a new arrangement was concluded in 1817. By the original plan, Parma, with Piacenza and Guastalla, had been bestowed as an independent duchy on the ex-empress of the French, Marie Louise [Napoleon’s wife], with the remainder to her son, the young duke of Reichstadt: the subsequent treaty provided that, on the death of the former, the ex-queen of Etruria or her heirs should receive Parma and its annexed provinces, giving up Lucca to be incorporated into Tuscany.

The archduke Ferdinand returned to that Tuscan duchy which he had inherited from his father Leopold; and, besides the isle of Elba, and some trifling extensions of frontier, he now received uncontrolled possession of the garrison-state.

The pope was confirmed in his sovereignty over the states of the church as far north as the Po, and including the Neapolitan districts of Benevento and Pontecorvo; but his French provinces were not restored.

To the old king of Naples were given his dominions in their former extent;[25] and on the 8th of December, 1816, he declared himself, by the title of Ferdinand I, the founder of a new dynasty, whose realm, embracing both the mainland provinces and the island, was named the united kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The petty San Marino was formally recognised as the last surviving representative of the Italian republics; and a French peer, who possessed Monaco, an imperial fief on the coast near Nice, had influence enough to preserve for his lands the nominal rank of an independent state.

In styling himself merely king of Lombardy and Venice, the emperor Francis assumed a title which expressed the real amount of his power much less properly than it would have been denoted by that more ambitious name which Napoleon had given to a monarchy embracing but a few more Italian provinces. Without any further condition Austria was mistress of the half of Italy. Naples alone was left to dispute with the pope about his claims of feudal homage, which were finally compromised in 1818, for an annual payment of 12,000 crowns to Rome. The dangers, however, which encompassed the restored sovereigns were made the pretence for conferring on the Austrians a temporary right of interference far more active than any ancient privilege. They were allowed to garrison Piacenza during the reign of Marie Louise, and Ferrara and Comacchio permanently; while the king of Naples accepted as a favour, and agreed to subsidise largely, a German army which was to protect him from his own subjects during a fixed term of years.[d]

MARRIOTT ON THE RESTORATION

Looking no longer to the past but to the future, the most interesting feature of the Restoration still remains to be noticed. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the dukes of Savoy had acquired Piedmont, and thus succeeded in straddling the Alps. Their geographical position, as the prince de Ligne had cynically said, did not permit them to behave like honest men. Consequently by rather tortuous, but in the main successful, diplomacy they managed in the eighteenth century to add the royal crown of Sardinia to the ducal crowns of Piedmont and Savoy; and never was a European war concluded, however remote the principal combatants might be, but the house of Savoy was able to acquire several of the towns of Lombardy, stripping it, as the saying goes, like an artichoke, leaf by leaf. Their position was still further strengthened in 1815 by the acquisition of the annihilated republic of Genoa.

Such was the Italy of 1815, little if at all better than Metternich’s “geographical expression.”[26] But for all that the Italy of 1815 was not the Italy of the ante-Napoleonic days. Strive as they might, the diplomatists of Vienna could not set back the hands of time, nor erase from the minds of the Italian people the newly awakened recollection of their ancient fame; they could not stifle, strive as they might, their newly conceived but none the less passionate longing for the realisation of their national identity. A more accurate or more eloquent expression of this feeling could hardly be found than in the letter addressed, thirty years afterwards, by Mazzini nominally to Sir James Graham, really to the English people:

“There are over there (in Lombardy) from four to five millions of human creatures gifted with an immortal soul, with powerful faculties, with ardent and generous passions; with aspirations towards free agency, towards the ideal which their fathers had a glimpse of, which nature and tradition point out to them; towards a national union with other millions of brother souls in order to attain it; from four to five millions of men desiring only to advance under the eye of God, their only master, towards the accomplishment of a social task which they have in common with sixteen or seventeen millions of other men, speaking the same language, treading the same earth, cradled in their infancy in the same maternal songs, strengthened in their youth by the same sun, inspired by the same memories, the same sources of literary genius. Country, liberty, brotherhood, all are wrested from them; their faculties are mutilated, curbed, chained, within a narrow circle traced for them by men who are strangers to their tendencies, to their wants, to their wishes; their tradition is broken under the cane of an Austrian corporal; their immortal soul feudatory to the stupid caprices of a man seated on a throne at Vienna, to the caprices of the Tyrolese agents; and you go on indifferent, coolly inquiring if these men be subject to this or that tariff, if the bread that they eat costs them a halfpenny more or less! That tariff, whatever it is, is too high; it is not they who have had the ordering of it; that bread, dear or not, is moistened with tears, for it is the bread of slaves.”[e]

ERRORS OF THE MONARCHY

[Sidenote: [1815-1816 A.D.]]

The condition of Italy, in 1815, was one in which old things struggled with new. Her soldiers, after having served with credit under Napoleon, were either hastily disbanded, or called upon to transfer their allegiance to powers against which they had often been arrayed. The transition from war to peace is apt to bear hardly upon men whose services are no longer required, and whose career is brought to a close. Where feelings of good-will and mutual confidence exist, such hardships are felt, but do not rankle. From the restored governments of Italy the veterans of Napoleon’s armies obtained little sympathy. Their case was not generously or wisely considered, and their feelings, as well as claims, were disregarded. Distinction, whether military or civil, obtained under the French Empire, was viewed with narrow-minded aversion. At a crisis when the greatest delicacy was required, the generous confidence and noble forbearance which win the allegiance of the heart were wanting; and the prejudices of retrogradist counsellors were allowed to prevail. At Milan, disgust was excited by the presence of a German army, and by the employment of foreign officials. At Turin, and still more at Naples, royalist factions were allowed to monopolise and abuse the powers of the state.

Thus peace, which had been hailed with so much joy, was robbed of its sweetness; the exactions of the French were forgotten, and the impartiality of their administration began to be regretted. Then it was that the Carbonari became dangerous, not only by their alliance with the resuscitated embers of Jacobinism--smothered, but not extinguished, by Bonaparte--but by the strength which they derived from a general feeling of disappointment.[f]

The civil and political reforms which had been instituted at the end of the last century were abandoned. The Jesuits were restored; many suppressed monasteries were re-established; and the mortmain laws were repealed. Elementary education was narrowed in its limits, and thrown into the hands of the clergy. Professors suspected of liberal views were expelled from the universities, and the press was placed under the most rigid supervision. All persons who had taken part in the Napoleonic governments, or who were known to entertain patriotic opinions, found themselves harassed, watched, spied on, and reported. The cities swarmed with police agents and informers. The passport system was made more stringent, and men were frequently refused even a few days’ leave of absence from their homes. The Code Napoléon was withdrawn from those provinces which had formed part of the Italian kingdom, while, in the papal states, the administration was placed again in the hands of ecclesiastics.

This political and spiritual reign of terror, which had for its object the crushing of Italian liberalism, was sanctioned and supported by Austria. Each petty potentate bound himself to receive orders from Vienna, and, in return for this obedience, the emperor guaranteed him in the possession of his throne. The Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, powerfully defended and connected with Austria by land and sea, became one huge fortress, garrisoned with armed men in perpetual menace of the country. Under these conditions the Italians were half maddened, and thousands of otherwise quiet citizens, either in the hope of finding redress and protection, or only from a feeling of revenge, joined secret revolutionary societies; for it must not be supposed that the Revolution had left the Italians as passive as it found them.

A new spirit was astir, which was not likely to be checked by the arrangements of the European congress--the spirit of national independence. During the convulsions caused by Napoleon’s conquest of Italy the allied powers had themselves fostered this spirit, in order to oppose French rule. The Austrians, the English, and Murat, in turn, had publicly invited the Italians to fight for their national independence. And now the people, who relied upon the proclamations and expected the fulfilment of so many promises, found themselves by the consent of Europe delivered over, tied and gagged, to a foreign oppressor. To take but one example: Ferdinand, when he quitted Naples in May, 1815, addressed a proclamation to his subjects, solemnly engaging to respect the laws that should in his absence be decreed by a constitution. In June he pledged himself at Vienna to introduce into his kingdom no institutions irreconcilable with those which Austria might establish in her own dependencies. Accordingly in 1816 he put an end to the Sicilian constitution of 1812.[g]

Among the means which were effective in first rousing Italy from her lethargy, and in fostering the will to acquire her independence at all costs, the secret society of the Carbonari[27] undoubtedly occupies the front rank. The Carbonari acted in two ways; by what they did and by what they caused to be done by others who were outside their society, and perhaps unfavourable to it, but who were none the less sensible of the pressure it exercised. The origin of Carbonarism has been sought in vain; as a specimen of the childish fables that once passed for its history may be noticed the legend that Francis I of France once stumbled on a charcoal burner’s hut when hunting “on the frontiers of his kingdom next to Scotland,” and was initiated into the rites similar to those in use among the sectaries of the nineteenth century. Those rites referred to vengeance which was to be taken on the wolf that slew the lamb; the wolf standing for tyrants and oppressors, and the lamb for Jesus Christ, the sinless victim, by whom all the oppressed were represented.

The Carbonari themselves generally believed that they were heirs to an organisation started in Germany before the eleventh century, under the name of the Faith of the Kohlen-Brenners [charcoal burners], of which Theobald de Bri, who was afterwards canonised, was a member. Theobald was adopted as patron saint of the modern society, and his fancied portrait figured in all the lodges. The religious symbolism of the Carbonari, their oaths and ceremonies, and the axes, blocks, and other furniture of the initiatory chamber, were well calculated to impress the poorer and more ignorant and excitable of the brethren. The Vatican affected to believe that Carbonarism was an offshoot of freemasonry, but, in spite of sundry points of resemblance, such as the engagements of mutual help assumed by members, there seems to have been no real connection between the two. The practical aims of the Carbonari may be summed up in two words: freedom and independence.

A Genoese of the name of Malghella, who was Murat’s minister of police, was the first person to give a powerful impetus to Carbonarism, of which he has even been called the inventor, but the inference goes too far. Malghella ended miserably; after the fall of Murat he was arrested by the Austrians, who consigned him as a new subject to the Sardinian government, which immediately put him in prison. Whatever was truly Italian in Murat’s policy must be mainly attributed to him. As early as 1813 he urged the king to declare himself frankly for independence, and to grant a constitution to his Neapolitan subjects. But Malghella did not find the destined saviour of Italy in Murat; his one lasting work was to establish Carbonarism on so strong a basis that, when the Bourbons returned, there were thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Carbonari in all parts of the realm. The discovery was not a pleasant one to the restored rulers, and the prince of Canosa, the new minister of police, thought to counteract the evil done by his predecessor by setting up an abominable secret society called the Calderai del Contrapeso (Braziers of the Counterpoise), principally recruited from the refuse of the people, lazzaroni, bandits, and let-out convicts, who were provided by government with 20,000 muskets, and were sworn to exterminate all enemies of the church of Rome, whether Jansenists, freemasons, or Carbonari. This association committed some horrible excesses, but otherwise it had no results. The Carbonari closed in their ranks, and learned to observe more strictly their rules of secrecy.

[Sidenote: [1816-1821 A.D.]]

From the kingdom of Naples, Carbonarism spread to the Roman states, and found a congenial soil in Romagna, which became the focus whence it spread over the rest of Italy. It was natural that it should take the colour, more or less, of the places where it grew. In Romagna, where political assassination is in the blood of the people, a dagger was substituted for the symbolical woodman’s axe in the initiatory rites. It was probably only in Romagna that the conventional threat against informers was often carried out. The Romagnols invested Carbonarism with the wild intensity of their own temperament, resolute even to crime, but capable of supreme impersonal enthusiasm. The ferment of expectancy that prevailed in Romagna is reflected in the Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, whom young Count Pietro Gamba made a Carbonaro, and who looked forward to seeing the Italians send the barbarians of all nations back to their own dens, as to the most interesting spectacle and moment in existence. His lower apartments, he writes, were full of the bayonets, fusils, and cartridges of his Carbonari cronies: “I suppose that they consider me as a dépôt, to be sacrificed in case of accidents. It is no great matter, supposing that Italy could be liberated, who or what is sacrificed. It is a grand object--the very poetry of politics. Only think--a free Italy! Why, there has been nothing like it since the days of Augustus!” The movement on which such great hopes were set was to begin in the kingdom of Naples in the spring of 1820.[h]

THE INSURRECTIONS OF 1820-1821

In 1820 and 1821 the discontents of the people, and the disappointment of many in the educated classes, broke out into insurrection, first at Naples, and then in Piedmont. There were no symptoms of concert, even between the Neapolitans and the Piedmontese; and the plots which arose elsewhere seem to have been produced by causes altogether local. But the immediate encouragement of the Italian revolt was furnished by the revolution in Spain,[28] and by the principle of non-intervention, which the allied sovereigns had adopted in reference to that country. The Italians vainly hoped that the same rule would be followed in their case.

On the 2nd of July, 1820, there broke out a mutiny among the troops. The insurgents were headed by two or three subaltern officers, who were Carbonari; and the whole army, having deserted the king, placed itself under its own generals. The revolt was joined by the people from all the provinces, and a remonstrance was sent to the government, demanding a representative constitution. The old king deposited his power in the hands of the crown prince Francis, as vicar, having first, however, promised to grant the nation their request, and to publish the charter in eight days. Unfortunately, the ultra-party, who were at this stage in possession of all the power, came forward instantly with a demand that the constitution should be that of the Spanish cortes, first published in 1812, and recently reinstituted. The prince-vicar acceded to this proposal.

A new difficulty soon arose. The Sicilians revolted and demanded a separate constitution and parliament, which the government refused to grant. Bloody disturbances took place at Palermo, which the Neapolitans suppressed by sending across an armed force.

The Neapolitan parliament was opened on the 1st of October, 1820, by the king in person, in the large church of the Spirito Santo. In the same month the three crowned heads who formed the Holy Alliance, attended by ministers from most of the other European powers, met at Troppau. The sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia resolved to violate their own late precedents of non-intervention, and to put down the Neapolitan constitution by force of arms. The weak monarch was easily convinced that his promises had been extorted and therefore were not binding, and the Neapolitans did not learn their danger until the Germans, 43,000 strong, were within a few days’ march of the frontier. A skirmish took place near Rieti, on the 7th of March, 1821; and next morning Pépé’s army had melted down to a few hundreds. The war was at an end.

On the 15th of May the king returned to Naples; and the Austrians left him strong garrisons, both on the mainland and in Sicily. The promise of complete amnesty, which had made part of his message to the parliament, was instantly forgotten. Courts-martial and criminal juntas were set down everywhere; a hundred persons at least were executed, among whom were Morelli and Silvati, two of the officers who had headed the first mutiny. Carrascosa and Pépé escaped; and Colletta, and two other generals, were allowed to live under surveillance in remote provinces of Austria.

The Neapolitan constitutionalists had hardly dispersed, when another military insurrection broke out in Piedmont. It was headed by several noblemen and officers of rank, and secretly favoured by Charles Albert, prince of Carignano, a kinsman of the royal family, who later became king of Sardinia.

[Sidenote: [1821-1824 A.D.]]

On the 10th of March, 1821, several regiments simultaneously mutinied. On the 12th the insurgents seized the citadel of Turin, and on the 13th the king abdicated in favour of his absent brother, Charles Felix, appointing the prince of Carignano regent, who next day took the oaths to the Spanish constitution. On the 16th the new king, Charles Felix, repudiated the acts of the regent; and in the night of the 21st Charles Albert fled to the camp of the Austrians. On the 8th of April the German army joined the royal troops at Novara, and beat the insurgents; the junta dissolved itself on the 9th; and on the 10th the king was in possession of Turin and of the whole country.

While these stormy scenes were acting in the two extremities of the peninsula, no district of Italy remained altogether undisturbed.

Arrests took place in several quarters of the papal state, but most of all in the eastern provinces. In the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, the government professed to have discovered dangerous plots, as to which we know nothing with certainty except the existence of an association of well-educated and high-principled men at Milan, who laboured in the cause of education by instituting schools, and attempted to aid public enlightenment by a periodical called the Conciliatore, which the Austrians speedily suppressed. Those members of this society who became best known to the world were the counts Porro and Confalonieri, and the poet Silvio Pellico. These with many others were seized, and several were condemned to die. None of them were actually put to death, but whatever may have been the political offences of those unfortunate Milanese who, like him and Pellico, pined or died in the dungeons of Spielberg, it is at least certain that there was no truth whatever in most of the charges which the Austrians at the time allowed their journals to propagate against them.

THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1831

[Sidenote: [1821-1832 A.D.]]

The effect produced by those abortive revolutions was very disastrous to Italy. They introduced over the whole country a hateful system of espionage, caused by suspicion in the rulers and dislike in the subjects, which was not soon relaxed, and has still left painful traces. However, the measures of this sort which were adopted, with some which occasionally removed causes of complaint, were effectual in keeping the people tolerably quiet for about ten years. In Sicily a conspiracy broke out in 1822, and in 1828 a weak insurrection at Salerno was suppressed. Tuscany and Lombardy remained tranquil under a mild despotism and thirty thousand Austrian bayonets; but the French Revolution of 1830[29] gave an example which was followed next year by the states of the church, by Modena, and by Parma.

We may be assisted in discovering causes for the insurrection in the papal states, by examining one or two of the principal acts of the government after the death of Pius VII, which took place in 1823. On the 5th of October, 1824, the new pope Leo XII issued a motu-proprio which annihilated at a blow the charter of 1816. The administration both of Leo and his successor, Pius VIII, was conducted in accordance with the spirit thus indicated. The arbitrary proceedings of the police became a universal pest; the administration of criminal justice was again secret, irresponsible, and inhumanly tedious; and, both in that department and in civil causes, the judges were openly charged with general venality. Besides all the old burdens, some new or obsolete ones were imposed, especially the focalico, a tax on every hearth, which weighed very heavily on the peasantry; and the customs were increased exorbitantly, while the government-monopolies were extended.

In Modena, it seemed to have been resolved to sweep away every vestige that the French had left behind them. The old laws of the Este had been re-enacted, but were every day infringed by edicts of the prince, and by special commissions of justice. The taxes were raised to nearly five times their amount under Napoleon; and for the elective functionaries of the communes, the sovereign substituted young noblemen, chosen by himself.

The insurrection began in Modena, where, in the night of the 3rd of February, 1831, a body of conspirators were arrested in the house of Ciro Menotti. The people rose, and the duke fled to Mantua. On the 4th, being just two days after the election of Pope Gregory XVI, Bologna was in open revolt. The rebellion spread over the greater part of the Roman state. At the same time, the ex-empress Marie Louise fled from Parma, which was likewise in tumult. The subjects of the papal provinces declared openly against the temporal sovereignty of the pope, and on the 26th of February, deputies from all the revolted states united in proclaiming a new republic. The allied sovereigns did not lose a day in putting down the insurrection. On the 9th of March the duke of Modena with an Austrian army retook his capital; and, after some resistance, the Germans, before the end of the same month, had restored to the holy see all its possessions. In Modena, Menotti and Borelli, the leaders of the revolt, were hanged, and more than a hundred others were imprisoned for life. In Parma, Marie Louise acted mercifully, and voluntarily redressed some of the grievances of which her subjects, perhaps with less reason than their neighbours, had complained. In the papal states no executions took place, but many men were condemned to imprisonment for longer or shorter periods.

The leading powers of Europe interposed to recommend concessions by the pope to his subjects; and, on the 5th of July, 1831, the holy father issued a motu-proprio, which, for the third time since 1814, altered the administration. It resumed much of the charter of 1816, retaining the division into delegations, and the subdivision of these into districts; but it narrowed greatly the functions of the congregations, which were merely to have a consultative voice. And the new act did not give to the people even that share in election which, as to the communal boards, the decree of Consalvi had bestowed on them.

The subjects of the papal state did not conceal their disappointment at the pretended reforms. In January, 1832, the eastern districts were again in insurrection; and the slaughter of forty inhabitants of Forlì, men, women, and children, drove the people of the country nearly mad. Before the end of the month, the revolt was again suppressed by the Austrian grenadiers. This new interposition, however, at length aroused the French king, Louis Philippe, probably a little ashamed of the part he had already acted. On the 22nd of February, 1832, a French squadron, anchoring off Ancona, landed troops, which seized the town and citadel. Austria and its satellites professed high indignation at this interference; but the act seems to be quite defensible on diplomatic grounds, in the position which France occupied as a guarantee of the papal kingdom. In the kingdom of Naples, Francis, the prince-vicar of 1820, succeeded his father, and ruled feebly but not unkindly for a few years, after which his throne devolved on his son, Ferdinand, then a youth of twenty-one.[d]

Thus the enterprise of 1831, though extensively supported, had been undertaken without any fixed plan and, as we have seen, ended in complete discomfiture. The scattered and persecuted sette [societies], when once more rallied and united, carried on their operations under a new name; and the ill-starred faction, which was destined to mislead and vitiate the national impulse of 1848, assumed the title of Young Italy. “Austria,” says Gualterio, “acquired in this society a new ally.”

[Sidenote: [1831 A.D.]]

In 1831, a young Genoese, Giuseppe Mazzini [born in 1808], obtained celebrity by the publication of a letter in which he exhorted Charles Albert, who had just succeeded to the throne, to undertake the liberation of Italy. The boldness and self-confidence displayed in this production was admired by the cervelli bollenti of the day; and the exiles and refugees, whose disappointment was recent and who were smarting under persecution, were predisposed towards one whose counsels were uttered with oracular authority, and who cheered them with new and undefined hopes.

Mazzini soon became the acknowledged centre of the new sect, of which the establishment was contemporary with that of “Young France” and “Young Germany,” and which was intended to transform and assimilate those already in existence, and to give them unity of purpose and command.[30][f]

SASSONE ON MAZZINI AND “YOUNG ITALY”

To reconstruct a nation torn and bowed down under the most enervating of clerical and monarchal despotisms requires first of all the creation of citizens and the organisation of a large and strong association based on national right. An association depending on the entire people and opening up to them at the same time a larger horizon than the miserable position they had occupied in the peninsula--such was the generous idea which fermented in the head of Mazzini, that great exile of Italian independence, when he took up at Marseilles his idea already elaborated during his captivity at Savona and founded the society and paper of “Young Italy.” It was under the influence of the same principles, and driven by his unshakable faith in the future of Italy, that he, with several friends devoted like himself to the popular cause, undertook to develop the intelligence of poor Italian workmen in London.

The statutes of the new society destined to replace the Carbonari, and created by Mazzini and a group of exiles, was based on national law and accessible to all Italians. By its strong popular organisation it was destined to keep the Austrian forces in perpetual check over the whole peninsula until the day of help. And thus by the simplicity of its resources it would defy the surveillance of a most vigilant police. Religious ideas and patriotic thoughts were blended and confounded in the thoughts of this apostle of Italian liberty. They might be summed up in two words--Dio e popolo.

The object of Young Italy was inscribed on its national banner of red, green, and white: on one side it bore the words, “Liberty, Equality, Humanity;” on the other, “Unity, Independence.”

All initiates into Young Italy were obliged to pay into the society’s funds a monthly contribution of fivepence, or more, if they were able.

When initiated each new associate had to pronounce the following promise in the presence of the initiator:

“In the name of God and Italy; in the name of all the martyrs of the holy Italian cause who have fallen under the blows of foreign or native tyranny: by the duties which bind me to my country, to the God who created me, and to the brothers God has given me; by the innate love in all men for the spot where his mother was born and her children have lived; by the shame I feel before citizens of other nations in having neither the name nor the rights of a citizen, neither national flag nor fatherland; by the memory of ancient power; by the consciousness of present abjection; by the tears of Italian mothers over sons dead on the scaffold, in dungeons, or in exile; by the misery of Italian millions: believing in a God-sent mission to Italy and the duty of every Italian born man to contribute to its accomplishment; convinced that wherever God has wished a nation to be there the necessary forces exist to create it--that the people are the depositary of this force, and in the guiding of this force by the people and with the people rests the secret of victory--I adhere to Young Italy, an association of men holding the same faith, and I swear:

“To devote myself entirely and forever to constituting a national Italy, one, independent, free, and republican; to help in every way my associated brothers; now and forever (Ora e sempre); I also swear, calling on my head the anger of God, the horror of men, and the infamy of perjury, if ever I venture to betray all or part of my oath.”

The arrangement of degrees was as simple as possible. Rejecting the interminable hierarchy of Carbonarism, the society had only two degrees: initiator and initiated. A central committee resided abroad to league themselves together as much as possible with democratic foreign elements, and generally to direct the enterprise. Signs of recognition between the affiliated were suppressed as being pre-eminently dangerous. The order word, a cut card, a special handshake, sufficed to accredit those travelling for the central committee to provincial committees and reciprocally. These signs of recognition were renewable every three months. A cypress branch (in memory of martyrs) was the symbol of the society. The general word of order, Ora e sempre, alluded to the constancy necessary to the vindication of Italian rights.[j]

FYFFE’S ESTIMATE OF MAZZINI

At a time not rich in intellectual or in moral power, the most striking figure among those who are justly honoured as the founders of Italian independence is perhaps that of Mazzini. Exiled during nearly the whole of his mature life, a conspirator in the eyes of all governments, a dreamer in the eyes of the world, Mazzini was a prophet or an evangelist among those whom his influence led to devote themselves to the one cause of their country’s regeneration. No firmer faith, no nobler disinterestedness, ever animated the saint or the patriot; and if in Mazzini there was also something of the visionary and the fanatic, the force with which he grasped the two vital conditions of Italian revival--the expulsion of the foreigner and the establishment of a single national government--proves him to have been a thinker of genuine political insight. Laying the foundation of his creed deep in the moral nature of man, and constructing upon this basis a fabric not of rights but of duties, he invested the political union with the immediateness, the sanctity, and the beauty of family life. With him, to live, to think, to hope, was to live, to think, to hope for Italy; and the Italy of his ideal was a republic embracing every member of the race, purged of the priestcraft and the superstition which had degraded the man to the slave, indebted to itself alone for its independence, and consolidated by the reign of equal law. The rigidity with which Mazzini adhered to his own great project in its completeness, and his impatience with any bargaining away of national rights, excluded him from the work of those practical politicians and men of expedients who in 1859 effected with foreign aid the first step towards Italian union; but the influence of his teaching and his organisation in preparing his countrymen for independence was immense; and the dynasty which has rendered to united Italy services which Mazzini thought impossible, owes to this great republican scarcely less than to its ablest friends.[k]

SYMONDS ON THE PROBLEMS AND THE LEADERS

Though the spirit infused into the Italians by Mazzini’s splendid eloquence aroused the people into a sense of their high destinies and duties, though he was the first to believe firmly that Italy could and would be one free nation, yet the means he sanctioned for securing this result, and the policy which was inseparable from his opinions, proved obstacles to statesmen of more practical and sober views. It was the misfortune of Italy at this epoch that she had not only to fight for independence, but also to decide upon the form of government which the nation should elect when it was constituted. All right-thinking and patriotic men agreed in their desire to free the country from foreign rule, and to establish national self-government. But should they aim at a republic or a constitutional monarchy? Should they be satisfied with the hegemony of Piedmont? Should they attempt a confederation, and if so, how should the papacy take rank, and should the petty sovereigns be regarded as sufficiently Italian to hold their thrones?

These and many other hypothetical problems distracted the Italian patriots. It was impossible for them, in the circumstances, first to form the nation and then to decide upon its government; for the methods to be employed in fighting for independence already implied some political principle. Mazzini’s manipulation of conspiracy, for instance, was revolutionary and republican; while those who adhered to constitutional order, and relied upon the arms of Piedmont, had virtually voted for Sardinian hegemony. The unanimous desire for independence existed in a vague and nebulous condition. It needed to be condensed into workable hypothesis; but this process could not be carried on with the growth of sects perilous to common action.

The party of Young Italy, championed by Mazzini, was the first to detach itself, and to control the blindly working forces of the Carbonari movement by a settled plan of action. It was the programme of Young Italy to establish a republic by the aid of volunteers recruited from all parts of the peninsula. When Charles Albert came to the throne, Mazzini, as we have seen, addressed him a letter, as equal unto equal, calling upon the king to defy Austria and rely upon God and the people. Because Charles Albert (who, in spite of his fervent patriotism and genuine liberality of soul, was a man of mixed opinions, scrupulous in his sense of constitutional obligation, melancholy by temperament, and superstitiously religious) found himself unwilling or unable to take this step, the Mazzinisti denounced him as a traitor to 1821, and a retrogressive autocrat.

[Sidenote: [1831-1846 A.D.]]

In his exile at Geneva, Mazzini now organised an armed attempt on Savoy. He collected a few hundred refugees of all nations, and crossed the frontier in 1833. But this feeble attack produced no result beyond convincing Charles Albert that he could not trust the republicans. Subsequent attempts on the king’s life roused a new sense of loyalty in Piedmont, and defined a counter-body of opinion to Mazzini’s. The patriots of a more practical type, who may be called moderate liberals, began, in one form or another, to aim at achieving the independence of Italy constitutionally by the help of the Sardinian kingdom. What rank Sardinia would take in the new Italy remained an open question.

The publication of Vincenzo Gioberti’s treatise, Il Primato morale e civile degli Italiani, in 1843, considerably aided the growth of definite opinion. His utopia was a confederation of Italian powers, under the spiritual presidency of the papacy, and with the army of Piedmont for sword and shield. This book had an immense success. It made timid thinkers feel that they could join the liberals without sacrificing their religious or constitutional opinions. At the same date Cesare Balbo’s Speranze d’Italia exercised a somewhat similar influence, through its sound and unsubversive principles. In its pages Balbo made one shrewd guess, that the Eastern question would decide Italian independence.

Massimo d’Azeglio, who also was a Piedmontese; the poet Giusti, the baron Ricasoli, and the marchese Gino Capponi in Tuscany; together with Alessandro Manzoni at Milan, and many other writers scattered through the provinces of Italy, gave their weight to the formation of this moderate liberal party. These men united in condemning the extreme democracy of the Mazzinisti, and did not believe that Italy could be regenerated by merely manipulating the insurrectionary force of the revolution. On political and religious questions they were much divided in detail, suffering in this respect from the weakness inherent in liberalism. Yet we are already justified in regarding this party as a sufficient counterpoise to the republicans; and the man who was destined to give it coherence, and to win the great prize of Italian independence by consolidating and working out its principles in practice, was already there.

The count Camillo Benso di Cavour had been born in 1810, two years later than Mazzini. He had not yet entered upon his ministerial career, but was writing articles for the Risorgimento, which at Turin opposed the Mazzinistic journal Concordia, and was devoting himself to political and economical studies. It is impossible to speak of Mazzini and Cavour without remembering the third great regenerator of Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi. At this date he was in exile; but a few years later he returned, and began his career of popular deliverance in Lombardy.

Mazzini the prophet, Garibaldi the knight-errant, and Cavour the statesman, of Italian independence, were all natives of the kingdom of Sardinia. But their several positions in it were so different as to account in no small measure for the very divergent parts they played in the coming drama. Mazzini was a native of Genoa, which ill tolerated the enforced rule of Turin. Garibaldi came from Nice, and was a child of the people. Cavour was born in the midst of that stiff aristocratical society of old Piedmont which has been described so vividly by D’Azeglio in his Ricordi. The Piedmontese nobles had the virtues and the defects of English country squires in the last century. Loyal, truthful, brave, hard-headed, tough in resistance, obstinately prejudiced, they made excellent soldiers, and were devoted servants of the crown. Moreover, they hid beneath their stolid exterior greater political capacity than the more genial and brilliant inhabitants of southern and central Italy.

Cavour came of this race and understood it. But he was a man of exceptional quality. He had the genius of statesmanship--a practical sense of what could be done, combined with rare dexterity in doing it, fine diplomatic and parliamentary tact, and noble courage in the hour of need. Without the enthusiasm, amounting to the passion of a new religion, which Mazzini inspired, without Garibaldi’s brilliant achievements, and the idolatry excited by this pure-hearted hero in the breasts of all who fought with him and felt his sacred fire, there is little doubt that Cavour would not have found the creation of United Italy possible. But if Cavour had not been there to win the confidence, support, and sympathy of Europe, if he had not been recognised by the body of the nation as a man whose work was solid and whose sense was just in all emergencies, Mazzini’s efforts would have run to waste in questionable insurrections, and Garibaldi’s feats of arms must have added but one chapter more to the history of unproductive patriotism.

While, therefore, we recognise the part played by each of these great men in the liberation of their country, and while we willingly ignore their differences and disputes, it is Cavour whom we must honour with the title of the maker of United Italy.

POPE PIUS IX AND HIS LIBERAL POLICY

[Sidenote: [1846-1848 A.D.]]

From this digression, which was necessary in order to make the next acts in the drama clear, we now return to the year 1846. Misrule had reached its climax in Rome, and the people were well-nigh maddened, when Gregory XVI died and Pius IX was elected in his stead.[31] It seemed as though an age of gold had dawned; for the greatest of all miracles had happened. The new pope declared himself a liberal, proclaimed a general amnesty to political offenders, and in due course granted a national guard, and began to form a constitution. The Neo-Guelfic school of Gioberti believed that their master’s utopia was about to be realised.

Italy went wild with joy and demonstrations. The pope’s example proved contagious. Constitutions were granted in Tuscany [February 11, 1848], Piedmont [March 4th], and Rome [March 14th]. The duke of Lucca fled, and his domain was joined to Tuscany. Only Austria and Naples declared that their states needed no reforms. On the 2nd of January, 1848, a liberal demonstration at Milan served the Austrians for pretext to massacre defenceless persons in the streets. These Milanese victims were hailed as martyrs all over Italy, and funeral ceremonies, partaking of the same patriotic character as the rejoicings of the previous year, kept up the popular agitation. On the 12th of January Palermo rose against King Ferdinand II, and Naples followed her example on the 27th. The king was forced in February to grant the constitution of 1812, to which his subjects were so ardently attached.[g]

FOOTNOTES

[25] [With regard to Naples there was an interminable and difficult debate about the documents which were found in Paris, and which clearly proved the treacherous thoughts of Gioacchino [Joachim Murat] against the allies. The final result was that even Austria which had upheld him detested Murat, and on the 10th day of April declared war against him as we have seen. After these proceedings there was nothing to prevent the congress of Vienna from taking possession of Naples also. It was again adjudged to King Ferdinand IV. He was already in possession of the kingdom when the congress restored it to him.[c]]

[26] [Stillman calls it still less--only a “diplomatic expression.”]

[27] [Literally “charcoalers,” charcoal-making being a prominent industry in the wilds of the Abruzzo and Calabria where Carbonarism found its refuge. The ritual of the organisation was founded on charcoal-makers’ terms, thus meetings were called vendite or “sales.” The idea spread to France, where La Fayette was a prominent member. See volume XIII, chapter I.]

[28] [The Spanish Revolution, which originated in Cadiz in 1819, resulted in the establishment of a constitution accepted by the king, and sworn to by the king of Naples himself as an infante of Spain. This event was full of interest to the Neapolitans, who felt their own need of a similar guarantee.--WRIGHTSON.[f]]

[29] [The influence of French politics on Italy has been remarkable. We have seen the effect of the spirit of 1793 and the Napoleonic idea. The French revolutions of 1830 and 1848 had like influence.]

[30] [Shortly after the July Revolution of 1830 Mazzini, having been entrapped by a government spy into the performance of some trifling commission for the Carbonari, was arrested and imprisoned in the fortress of Savona on the western Riviera. “The government was not fond,” so his father was informed, “of young men of talent, the subjects of whose musings were unknown to it.” After six months’ imprisonment Mazzini was acquitted of conspiracy, but was nevertheless exiled from Italy.--MARRIOTT.[e]]

[31] [“Pius IX had a heart and mind of sufficient calibre to comprehend the line of conduct he must follow in the midst of these circumstances. He hoped to realise gradually in his own territory and to second elsewhere all that the present asked for, but not to let himself be dragged further. “It will take ten years,” he said, “for the national and political spirit to penetrate the masses.” He worked for this end from the first day with his minister Gizzi. He called upon the municipal and ecclesiastical bodies for the best means of inspiring popular education; he established commissions to investigate the condition of all branches of the administration, but he took care to meddle with nothing that directly concerned politics. The respect and sympathy of popular opinion encouraged Pius IX’s work. Following his example the other sovereigns took up reforms. But what Pius IX lacked was promptitude of resolution and the assistance of men practical enough to carry out the aspirations of his heart.”--ZELLER.[l]]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XX. THE LIBERATION OF ITALY

The Italian kingdom is the fruit of the alliance between the strong monarchical principles of Piedmont and the dissolvent forces of revolution. Whenever either one side or the other, yielding to the influence of its individual sympathies or prejudices, failed to recognise that thus only, by the essential logic of events, could the unity of the country be achieved, the entire edifice was placed in danger of falling to the ground before it was completed. When Garibaldi stood on Cape Faro, conqueror and liberator, clothed in a glory not that of Wellington or Moltke, but that of Arthur or Roland or the Cid Campeador; the subject of the gossip of the Arabs in their tents, of the wild horsemen of the Pampas, of the fishers in ice-bound seas; a solar myth, nevertheless certified to be alive in the nineteenth century--Cavour understood that if he were left much longer single occupant of the field, either he would rush to disaster, which would be fatal to Italy, or he would become so powerful that, in the event of his being plunged, willingly or unwillingly, by the more ardent apostles of revolution into opposition with the king of Sardinia, the issue of the contest would be by no means sure. To guard against both possibilities, Cavour decided to act.--COUNTESS CESARESCO.[b]

[Sidenote: [1848-1866 A.D.]]

Only two powers, a spiritual and a worldly, the Jesuits and the Austrians, seemed to stand in the way of attaining Italian unity. Consequently the glowing hatred of the Italians directed itself against both. “Evvivas” for Gioberti, the enemy of the Jesuits, and “Death to the Germans” (Tedeschi) against Austria, mingled with the cries of acclamation for “Pio nono.” Irritation in the commercial dealings between Italians and Austrians in Padua, Milan, and the whole of upper Italy, mockeries, jests, scornful songs, and threats against the “Germans,” associations to repress tobacco and the lottery, in order to diminish the Austrian income, hostile demonstrations, and insulting agreements, increased the bitterness and anger of both nations to such a degree that the Austrian soldier lived in the cities of the Lombardic-Venetian kingdom as in the land of an enemy. Tumults and insulting demonstrations resulted in sanguinary scenes, so that the Austrian government finally declared martial law in Lombardy, in order to be able to put down the excitement and rebellion by force.

[Sidenote: [1848 A.D.]]

The February revolution of 1848 in Paris, incited those states in which military and revolutionary revolts were already under way to new efforts, and brought the fermentation to an outbreak in other states where the excitement had not yet ripened into action. In Italy the ideas of independence and national unity which had so long appeared in literature came to the surface and aroused the revolutionary spirits. When Charles Albert, king of Sardinia and Piedmont, without an actual declaration of war, sent his army into Milanese territory and drew his sword against Austria, the whole peninsula was seized by the warlike movement. Not only were the Italian governments carried away by the force of public opinion to send troops and to preserve a constitutional attitude; armed troops of volunteers also marched into the field so that the whole land of the Apennines was under arms against Austria.

Soon a double trend of opinion became perceptible; whereas Mazzini and his associates urged a popular war and republican institutions, the more moderate sought to establish national independence under the cross of Savoy, in conjunction with the constitutional king Charles Albert. The latter tendency prevailed after some wavering; in Milan and Venice the union with Piedmont was resolved upon. The princes of Parma and Modena who had allied themselves with Austria had to leave their states; even the grand duke of Tuscany, although giving way to the national and independent impulses, had to surrender his land to democrats and republicans for a short time. The pope also agreed to a constitution and appointed a lay ministry with advanced views; nevertheless the government and the body of popular representatives were to concern themselves only with the worldly and political matters of the papal state.

THE WAR BETWEEN NAPLES AND SICILY

[Sidenote: [1848-1850 A.D.]]

A state of war of insupportable animosity and irritation reigned over the whole of the Subalpine dual monarchy, when the February revolution of 1848 in Paris threw a firebrand into this inflammable material. In 1847, Metternich is said to have written to the field-marshal Radetzky: “It is not easy to fight larvæ and fantastic shapes and yet this is our ceaseless warfare, ever since the appearance of a liberal pope upon the scene.” These larvæ and fantastic shapes were now to gain body and substance.

In Sicily, where already a provincial government under the leadership of a few heads of the nobility like Ruggiero Settimo, Peter Lanza, Prince of Butera, etc., had taken charge of public affairs in Palermo and other places, negotiations with King Ferdinand, with Lord Minto as an intermediary, led to no agreement. A union of the two kingdoms, which according to the “ultimatum” of the Sicilians could have its only bond in the person of the monarch, was in opposition to Ferdinand’s desire for rule. Accordingly Sicily held to its outspoken independence from Naples and rejected every approach to an understanding with King Ferdinand II.

The Sicilian national representatives, divided into two chambers, elected the popular and respected noble Ruggiero Settimo, as president of the provisory government, and on April 13th adopted the resolution: “The throne of Sicily is declared vacant. Ferdinand Bourbon and his dynasty are forever removed from the Sicilian throne. Sicily shall be governed constitutionally and as soon as its constitution has been revised an Italian prince shall be called to the throne.” When Ferdinand, under the stress of events before Verona and in Rome, allowed himself to be moved by reactionary influence to dissolve the chambers of deputies on the very day of their opening “on account of their assuming illegal authority and exceeding their limits of power,” when he suppressed an uprisal of the militia and of the radicals by his Swiss guards and by the unloosed populace in a barricade battle, and, as Queen Caroline had done fifty years before, gave up the well-to-do population of his capital to the murderous and plundering greed of crowds of lazzaroni, then the cloth which had covered the two kingdoms was completely torn asunder. The frivolous, uneducated, and powerless people of Naples endured the hard yoke of military despotism and of a reactionary camarilla; but Sicily held all the more firmly to the exclusion of the Bourbons and proceeded to elect a new king after the new constitution had been rapidly revised in favour of democratic views. After many proposals, in which foreign influences also had a hand, the highest state authorities, the government, senate, and commune, united in the resolve to call the second son of Charles Albert, Prince Albert Amadeus of Savoy, duke of Genoa, to be the constitutional king of Sicily. But the fate of the beautiful, unfortunate island was not yet fulfilled, the sanguinary drama not yet played out. The news of the election reached the royal camp when the star of the Italian army was already in the descendant.

Charles Albert consequently declined the crown for his son in order not to incense France or England against him. Ferdinand, however, swore to preserve the integrity of his kingdom and took measures to subjugate the island from the citadel of Messina [Sept. 7th-9th], where there was a strong and well-equipped Neapolitan garrison. There now broke out a civil war full of horror, and with scenes of wild barbarity, patriotic heroism, and fanatic passion. General Filangieri, an energetic warrior from the time of Murat, bombarded Messina, so that thousands of dead bodies lay in the streets, many houses were burned, and the greater part of the surviving inhabitants sought safety and protection on the foreign ships in the harbour. From that time on Ferdinand II was designated as “King Bomba.”

After some time a truce was brought about through the intervention of France and England. In April, 1849, however, the war broke out anew. A numerous company of foreigners, commanded by the Pole, Mieroslawski, came to the aid of the Sicilians, but the military training and the better equipment of the Neapolitan mercenaries, especially of the Swiss, carried the day in the battle of Catania (April 6th, 1849).

On May 14th the Neapolitan army made its entry into Palermo, the capital of Sicily, and the unfortunate island, over which the tricoloured flag had waved for more than a year, became again enchained to the military dominion of the Bourbons. The heads of the provisory government, all of them men of culture and of noble birth and character, sought refuge among strangers. Filangieri, elevated to the rank of duke of Taormina, became governor of Sicily.

REVOLT AGAINST THE POPE; ROME A REPUBLIC

In the papal states, the enthusiasm for the pope declined when he did not satisfy the exaggerated demands quickly and completely enough, and when he earnestly rejected the desired declaration of war against Austria as incompatible with his position and religious dignity. Even the expulsion of the Jesuits, who were oppressed and threatened in all the Italian states, and the maintenance of a constitution as the “fundamental principle for the worldly rule of the papal state,” did not succeed in winning back his former popularity. The celebrated allocution in a consistory of cardinals, with the determined declaration that he would not wage war with Austria, was generally interpreted as the beginning of a reactionary change. What was the position, then, of the Roman troops and volunteers under the able general Durand which the liberal government had sent to join the army of fighters for independence across the Po? They were looked upon as rebels until Pius himself placed them under the protection of Charles Albert.

The allocution was the first backward step from the flag of national uprisal. Pius IX, therefore, soon became as much an object of hatred and enmity on the part of the patriots as he had before been their idol. In vain did he nominate the liberal champion Mamiani as president of the ministry, a position which as yet only clericals had held, and the historian Farini as under secretary of state; the feeling that the head of the church had been faithless to the national cause alienated the hearts of the Roman people more and more. He also had to endure the mortification of having his peace proposals rejected by Austria, proud over her new successes at arms. The reactionary coup d’état in Naples was regarded as the direct result of the allocution, and influenced the popular passions more and more against spiritual rule.

The clever Italian Rossi of Carrara, who had once taught law in Geneva, and had then occupied an influential position in Paris with Louis Philippe and Guizot, and had executed important diplomatic missions, was called by Pius IX to form a constitutional ministry, in order more tightly to seize the reins of government which threatened to slip out of the weak hands of the princes of the church. But, by his energetic measures against the increasing anarchy, Rossi so drew upon himself the hatred of the Roman democrats that at the opening of the chambers he was murdered on the steps of the senate on the very spot upon which Cæsar once fell.

Thereupon the unrestrained populace, led by the democratically inclined Charles Lucien Bonaparte, surrounded the Quirinal and forced the pope, through threats, to name a radical ministry, in which the advocate Galletti and the old democrat Sterbini had the greatest influence, next to Mamiani who had been recalled. From that time law and order disappeared from the holy city. The chamber of deputies was without power, and became so weakened by the withdrawal of many members that it was scarcely competent to form legal resolutions; the democratic popular club, together with the rude mob of Trastevere, controlled matters. Many cardinals withdrew; Pius IX was guarded like a prisoner.

Enraged at these acts and threatened as to his safety, the pope finally fled to Gaeta, in disguise, aided by the Bavarian ambassador Count Spaur. Here he formed a new ministry and entered a protest against all proceedings in Rome. This move procured at first the most complete victory for the republican party in the Tiberian city. A new constitutional assembly was summoned, which in its first sitting deprived the papacy of its worldly authority, established the Roman republic, and resolved to work for the union of Italy under a democratic-republican form of rule. A threat of excommunication from the pope was met with scorn by the popular union. A provisory government under the direction of three men undertook the administration of the free state, while the constitutional assembly laid hands on the church lands in order to form small farms out of them for the poor, and Garibaldi organised a considerable militia out of insurrectionary volunteers and democrats.

Garibaldi of Nice (born July 4th, 1807) was a bold insurrectionary leader who had wandered about in America and elsewhere as a political refugee for a long time, and who, on his return to his native country, had taken an active part in the struggle of the Piedmontese and Lombards against Austria. The unfortunate outcome of the renewed war in upper Italy, which had brought a large number of refugees to Rome, and the arrival of Mazzini, who for so long had been the active head of the “young Italy” party and the soul of the democratic propaganda, increased the revolutionary excitement in Rome. The union of revolutionary forces determined the powers protecting the papal states, whose help the pope had summoned, to common action and armed intervention.

THE FRENCH RESTORE THE POPE

While the Austrians after severe battles took possession of Bologna and Ancona, the Neapolitans from the south entered Roman territory, and a French army under General Oudinot, the son of the marshal, landed in Cività Vecchia and surrounded Rome, which was in a state of intense excitement. It was in vain that the French declared they came as friends, to protect order and legal liberty, to prevent Austrians and Neapolitans from occupying the papal state and its capital, and to forestall a counter revolution in favour of a reactionary and clerical movement; the democrats rejected the proffered hand of peace and propitiation, and prepared an obstinate opposition to the attacking enemy. The first assault of the French failed, May 2nd, 1849. After a brave fight against the insurgents, who were well placed and well armed, Oudinot, with severe losses, had to retreat to the sea and await reinforcements. In order to separate their opponents the triumvirs then entered into negotiations with the French general and decided on an eight days’ truce, which Garibaldi made good use of to attack the Neapolitan troops near Velletri and drive them back over the border (May 19th). Oudinot now began a new attack. But this time also they met with such determined resistance at the Pancrazio gate and in other places that they did not finally gain possession of the city, under treaty, until after weeks of sanguinary fighting (July 3rd). The barricades were at once cleared, the provisory government dissolved, and a foreign military rule established.

Garibaldi with his faithful followers climbed over the Apennines and after a thousand dangers and adventures escaped in a little boat to Genoa and from there to America. Of his companions the greater part fell into the hands of the Austrians; some of them were shot, others imprisoned in Mantua. Mazzini escaped to Switzerland, and when he was driven out from thence went to England where he continued his agitations. Pope Pius remained for a long time in his voluntary exile, and persevered in his anger towards the ungrateful city. Not until April, 1850, did he return. Quiet was preserved in Rome by a French garrison; only the bands of robbers who roamed through the country under desperate leaders bore testimony to the deep decay of social organisation, and to the impotency of the government.

REVOLUTIONS IN TUSCANY AND ELSEWHERE

The grand duke Leopold of Tuscany succeeded for a long time in keeping the favour of his subjects, by his liberal reforms, by banishing the Jesuits, and by taking part, although forced to do so, in the war against Austria. But here also the radical agitation finally succeeded in undermining the soil and in effecting the summoning of a constitutional assembly. By the activity of the demagogues public affairs soon fell into anarchy so that the grand duke found himself obliged to leave Tuscany with his family. The former ministers appeared at the head of the provisory government. In Leghorn the associates of Mazzini fanned the revolutionary fire. When the flames were too high, however, the conservative party put forth its strength and effected a revulsion of feeling. A moderate liberal government, under Gino Capponi, the Ricasoli brothers and others, took charge of affairs and invited the grand-duke, who had been residing in Gaeta, to return. He hesitated for some time until the Austrians under General d’Aspre had occupied Leghorn and the republican party had lost. Then only did Leopold re-enter his capital, Florence, and re-establish the old order (July 27th, 1849).

Duke Francis V of Modena, who had absolutistic inclinations, and Duke Charles of Parma, who had assumed the reins of government only a short time before, both of whom had placed themselves under Austrian military supremacy, did not succeed in withstanding the March storms. They left their states and attached themselves to Austria. Radetzky’s entry into Milan was for them also the day of return.

CHARLES ALBERT’S WAR WITH AUSTRIA

[Sidenote: [1848 A.D.]]

The most remarkable change in affairs was taking place in upper Italy. Charles Albert, king of Piedmont and Sardinia, a man with no steadfastness of character, had paid for the liberal sins of his youth by absolutism, but had then, in accordance with the spirit of the time, raised the flag of Italian nationality and independence, had granted a liberal constitution and summoned a patriotic ministry. He now thought the appropriate moment had come to gain the favour of the Italian people and the possession of the united kingdom of Lombardy and Venice, together with the dominion over Italy by a warlike incursion upon Austrian territory. United with the Lombards who had arisen against the Austrians after some hesitation, established a provisory government, and after an obstinate battle in the streets March 18th, 1848, and at the barricades of Milan lasting for several days had obliged the gray-headed field-marshal Radetzky to retreat with his troops; in alliance with the Venetians, who, after the liberation of their capital through the capitulation of the Austrian count Zichy, had joined the general national uprisal and supported by countless volunteers (Crociati) of middle Italy, Charles Albert marched against Mincio, advanced to the northern borders of Italy, and, after the victorious encounter at Goito (April 8th, 1848), threatened Peschiera, which with Verona, Mantua, and Legnago formed the celebrated “Quadrilateral” of fortification. Everywhere waved the tricoloured flag; most of the cities, with the exception of the strongholds of Mantua and Verona, joined the insurgents. The war took on the character of a crusade. The priesthood, from the newly appointed bishop of Milan down to the lowest brother, worked for the national cause, for the independence of Italy, and gave to the revolution the blessing of the church.

But soon the situation changed. On the 6th of May a sanguinary battle took place at Santa Lucia in which the Austrian army maintained the field against the enemy. The encounter at Santa Lucia was a turning-point in the war. Charles Albert began to doubt as to his reaching his end by arms and hoped to get better terms from the oppressed court at Vienna through the intervention of England. The source of the war between Adige and Mincio strengthened the king in his desire for peace. On the 11th of June the field marshal forced the city of Vicenza to surrender after a sanguinary battle, while the king of Piedmont occupied Rivoli, a place famous in the history of war, and undertook the siege of Mantua. The papal troops and volunteers were allowed free exit. At this time Garibaldi arrived in Charles Albert’s camp in order to take part in the war of independence. The Italians fought for freedom and nationality; the Austrians for dominion and military glory.

On the 25th of July, on a hot summer day Count Radetzky gained a victory at Custozza which established Austria’s military glory in the most brilliant fashion. The aged field marshal then advanced rapidly into Lombardy, driving before him the enemy, who were again conquered at Goito and Volta, and at the beginning of August he stood at the gates of Milan. Threatened by the mob and reviled and persecuted as a traitor, Charles Albert had left the city under the cover of night and accepted the armistice of Vigevino (August 9th, 1848) which he owed more to the generosity of the victor than to the intervening diplomacy of foreign powers. Radetzky, as gentle and humane as he was brave and powerful, stained his victory by no cruelty. A wholesale emigration made Milan a deserted city. Continued hostile demonstrations in the Lombard city made the measures of the Austrian governor more severe. Troops were quartered in the houses of the patriots; the palaces of prominent emigrants were turned into barracks, contributions were exacted, property of the nobles was confiscated. On the day after the conclusion of the truce Peschiera surrendered to General Haynau.

Thereby, however, the war between Sardinia and Austria was not concluded. The events in Vienna filled the Italians with new hopes; the efforts abroad to effect a peaceful solution between Piedmont and Austria came to nothing; the proposed congress in Brussels did not assemble; only a final decision by arms could dampen the inflamed spirits. Charles Albert, reviled by the people, pushed by the radicals, threatened by the republicans in his rulership, led astray by wounded princely pride, in his desperation formed the resolution to again try the fortune of war. In March (1849) a large Sardinian army, in which were several Polish leaders, crossed the Lombard border in order to make a second attempt to drive the Austrians out of Italy. But the sanguinary victories of the Austrian army at Montara and Novara March 23rd, 1849, put a quick stop to these undertakings and shattered the hopes of the Italian patriots.

CHARLES ALBERT ABDICATES: VICTOR EMMANUEL II SUCCEEDS

[Sidenote: [1849 A.D.]]

Charles Albert, despairing of his success but holding the feeling of his military and princely honour deep in his heart, abdicated in favour of his son, Victor Emmanuel II, fled from the land of his fathers and in distant Portugal sought a resting place for the short remainder of his days. He died in the firm belief that the power and future of Italy rested in the Piedmontese dynasty.[g]

Charles Albert, great only in misfortune, was not unworthy of magnanimous treatment and was now very willing to receive it. He had risked all to redeem the word pledged to the fatherland, and his plans of ambition and aggrandisement were frustrated and shattered, his sword and courage completely broken. Italy, both republican and reactionary, had left him alone on the place of election with his people; he feared and mistrusted the French Republic; he must have been tired of all the fine counsels, empty promises of England. He awaited death with calmness, and devoutly performed the last duties of the Catholic Christian; on the afternoon of the 26th of July, 1849, he succumbed to a third stroke of apoplexy.

The impression wrought by his death was that of an expiation, a sacrifice to the fatherland; his remains were brought to Genoa on the Piedmontese war vessel Monzambano. His body was worshipped as that of a martyr and saint, and thousands followed it to its grave on the lovely summit of Superga, eastward of Turin.

Besides his rare patience and courage, Charles Albert possessed no prominent intellectual qualities; if in the one sense he was a brave soldier, he also proved himself a very indifferent general. As a prince he had good intentions, but was wanting in all application, desire for instruction, and in determination to such a point that cunning and dissimulation were indispensable to him. Nevertheless he was a man, and the great dangers, the deep suffering which he had to undergo for a cause also borne by the noblest of the people, conciliated and glorified his memory; thus he left his successor and his state a very promising but weighty legacy.[h]

The young king Victor Emmanuel concluded a truce March 26th, 1849, with the victorious field marshal, but this aroused so much disfavour throughout the country that the chamber of deputies refused to ratify it and a revolt broke out in Genoa. Not until the treaty had been cancelled and the revolt put down by force, did the people succumb to the inevitable. The new chambers later confirmed the peace with Austria, which placed a great burden of debt on the country to pay for the expenses of the war. From that time the Sardinian kingdom advanced on the way of liberal reform and healthy internal development.

VENICE FAILS TO ACQUIRE FREEDOM

Only Venice, on account of the unconquerable security of its position, was able to resist the Austrian besieging army for months longer and to defy all attacks and attempts at conquest. Not until all hope of a happy outcome of the war had disappeared, after the defeat of the insurgents in all places, and not until the city had been reduced to a state of greatest misery through distractions within, and the enemy without, did Venice surrender to the Austrians under treaty. On August 30th, 1849, the field marshal made his triumphal entry into the city of lagoons. Manin, who had borne the greatest part in the heroic defence of Venice, fled to France, where, rejecting all proffered aid, he supported himself as an instructor in languages. The former dictator of Venice and the former prisoner of Spielberg, Pallavicino Trivulzio were the founders and creators of the Italian national union, in which the republicans and constitutionalists, in the fifties, rallied around the cross of Savoy for the liberation and union of the fatherland. Manin was not to live to see the day of Italy’s independence. He died on September 22nd, 1857. Ten years later his ashes were transported to Venice and buried in his liberated native city.

After the fall of Milan and Venice the double eagle spread its wings once more over the kingdom of Lombardy and Venice; in middle and upper Italy the banners of the legitimate rulers were once more erected and the Italian tricolours had a place only in Sardinia. Pius IX proclaimed his deep repentance for his sins of liberalism. However much foolhardiness and blind passion the Italian revolution may have brought to light, one point cannot be denied--the honour of the nation was rescued. For centuries the object of the scorn and contempt of other nations, the Italians showed that they also knew how to bear arms; and although this time also it was no less their own lack of order than the military superiority of their opponents which caused their surrender, yet by this uprisal the hope was awakened and strengthened that for them also the day would dawn, upon which national unity and legal freedom would lay the foundation of a happier and more worthy popular life.

After the defeat of their attempt to obtain liberty the patriots recognised the necessity of a closer union with the Sardinian-Piedmontese royal house, under the flag of which the organisation of a united Italy could alone be hoped for. This idea was seized by no one with greater zeal than by the former dictator of Venice, Daniele Manin, during his exile in Paris.

By means of pamphlets and newspaper articles, in union with Pallavicino, he sought to prepare his countrymen for a fresh national uprisal under the cross of Savoy. A propaganda of which “the head was Manin, the arm Pallavicino” worked for the realisation of the principle: “Independence and unity under Victor Emmanuel, king of Italy.” The fruit of this national movement was the Italian national union. Manin did not live to see its result, but his ideas kept gaining new followers. In La Farina the patriotic club obtained a more active and fiery co-labourer. Introduced to Cavour by Pallavicino, the active Sicilian undertook the rôle of mediator between the minister and the national union.

The propositions of Cavour, though not given the sanction of the congress, were made the programme of all the reform parties in the Italian peninsula. Piedmont which numbered, including Savoy and the island from which the kingdom took its name, scarcely five million inhabitants, could hope to form one member of the great Italian federation only after it had succeeded in breaking the rule and influence of Austria. All attempts to free Italy by force of arms having hitherto met with ill-success it was seen that Austria must first be spiritually undermined and weakened before recourse was again had to the sword. When Austria, setting its faith according to custom in the power of the bayonet and the influence of the clergy, sought to keep the people in subjection by means of spiritual pressure and a carefully organised police, Sardinia followed exactly the opposite course and weakened the power of the clergy, introduced greater political freedom and endeavoured in every way to win the confidence of the Italian people. Reforms were instituted in the system of taxation, foreign traffic and commerce were encouraged, the number of convents was reduced, and freedom of the press was allowed. In all these measures Cavour, as minister of commerce, was the moving spirit. The army was strengthened in important points, the fortification of Alexandria was begun, and the land defences all over the kingdom were placed in a state of readiness.

[Sidenote: [1854-1857 A.D.]]

In March, 1854, the despotic voluptuary Duke Charles III of Parma, who hated democrats and patriots and mistrusted all people of culture, was murdered in the open street, and two years later the prison-director Cereali, and the war-auditor Bordi, both objects of popular hatred, were assassinated in the same manner. Most terrible of all was the situation in Naples and Sicily, that part of the world fashioned by nature to be a paradise, but turned by man into a place of damnation. Ferdinand II made use of the years of European reaction to stamp out every inclination toward freedom and equal rights among his people, to fill the prisons with his political adversaries and to carry on all over his realm, a rule of despotism in which the spy-system, and judicial and official tyranny came to full luxuriance of growth. The king witnessed from his balcony the placing in chains by a special flogging-committee, of the political prisoners who numbered, it is said, from first to last 22,000.

In November the former member of parliament, Baron Bentioigna, headed an insurrection to force the readoption of the constitution of 1812, but he was defeated by the king’s troops and afterwards shot with many of his companions. In December the life of the king was attempted by a Mazzinist soldier. Armed bands, united in a secret society called the “Camorra,” perpetrated robbery and murder through all the land. Not daring to remain longer in the capital the king moved with his family to the castle of Caserta, which he kept closely guarded, allowing entrance to none but his most intimate friends. The presence of Mazzini in Genoa in the summer of 1857 brought the excitement over the whole peninsula up to fever-heat and led to several serious attempts at insurrection in Leghorn, Naples, and Capri. These insurrections were suppressed, but the causes of the discontent still remained, and the rebellious spirit was only the more ready to assert itself again at the first favorable opportunity.

LOUIS NAPOLEON’S INTERVENTION

[Sidenote: [1857-1859 A.D.]]

That war between Sardinia and Austria was merely a question of time became apparent to everyone toward the end of the fifties. Fortunately for Sardinia, Austria’s position was an isolated one owing to the enmity which her attitude during the Crimean War had won for her from Russia, and her inborn jealousy and distrust of Prussia. The many-headed German confederation was not in a position to interfere in political questions of world-importance, and it was Napoleon’s most earnest endeavour to reconcile Russia with France and Sardinia that a restoration of the alliance which had received its death-blow in the Crimean War might be made impossible for the future. It was not long before Russian men-of-war were to be seen in the Mediterranean, and Napoleon’s efforts on behalf of France were no less successful. The cautious emperor Napoleon might not have been so ready to champion the weaker side had it not been for the attempt on his life made by Orsini, as described in volume XIII.

The emperor had once held close relations with the Italian patriots, had even been a member of an Italian secret society, and now, regarded by his former associates as a traitor to their cause, he was condemned by them to death. In February a letter written by Orsini was made public in which he adjured the emperor to restore to Italy the independence it had lost in 1849 through France’s fault; to free it forever from the Austrian yoke. “Without Italian independence,” the letter closed, “the peace of Europe, even your majesty’s own safety is but an empty dream. Free my unhappy fatherland and the blessings of twenty-five million people will follow you into the next world.”

On the 13th of March Orsini and Pieri perished on the scaffold, the two remaining accomplices having been deported to America. The courage with which Orsini met death, and the love of country he manifested up to his last breath aroused universal sympathy. What Orsini living had failed to bring about, he accomplished dead. While the murderous attempt was made the pretext for robbing France of all freedom by means of the security law of the 28th of January, Napoleon in conjunction with Cavour--who with artful smoothness calmed his imperial associate’s anger toward Italy, the hotbed of conspiracies--proceeded to carry out the wishes of Orsini.

Several weeks later Cavour held a secret conference with Napoleon at which plans regarding Italy were perfected. “Italy to be free as far as Adria; the whole of upper Italy to be united in a kingdom, France to be enlarged by the annexation of Savoy,” these were the terms agreed upon in the interview. It was further proposed that the bond between the two reigning houses should be made still firmer by the betrothal of Prince Napoleon Bonaparte with Clotilde, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.[32]

AUSTRIA DECLARES WAR: MAGENTA AND SOLFERINO

In 1859 war was brought close in sight by Victor Emmanuel’s announcement at the opening of the chamber of deputies in Turin that Sardinia could no longer remain insensible to the cries for help that were arising on all sides. Austria proceeded at once to strengthen her army, to place the whole of Lombardy under martial law, and by every means possible sought to secure her power and possessions in Italy. Austria was severely blamed by the neutral powers for beginning hostilities, and it seemed as though with the death of Field Marshal Radetzky Austria’s military star had set forever. To Franz Gyulay, a member of the Hungarian nobility who had filled many offices but had in none of them given proofs of marked ability, fell the command.

[Sidenote: [1859 A.D.]]

By shameful inactivity the Austrians allowed the Sardinians time to concentrate their 80,000 men around the fortress of Alessandria, where they were joined in May by several divisions of French troops, Garibaldi, meanwhile, with his “Alpine hunters” guarding the foot of the mountain whence he could harass the right wing of the Austrians and support the operations of the main army. The popularity of his name drew volunteers to his banner in flocks, and his appearance in the northern lake-region aroused the wildest enthusiasm among the people. About the middle of May Napoleon himself arrived in Italy; although he left the actual lead to able and experienced generals, he took his place at the head of the troops.

Count Stadion, sent out to reconnoitre with 12,000 men, came upon the French near Montebello May 20th, 1859, and was forced to retreat. The battle of Magenta followed, June 4th, in which the victory fell to the French.[33] The bravery of the Austrians in this engagement, although they suffered from the greatest lack of necessary equipments, excited the admiration even of the enemy. Never did the defects of the Austrian administration become so glaringly apparent as during the campaign in Italy. Lombardy was the prize at stake in this battle of Magenta. Gyulay, incapable of rallying his scattered forces for a new attempt, immediately gave orders for a general retreat. Milan was evacuated in the next two days so hastily that the movement bore the character of a flight, the fortifications around Pavia and Piacenza were blown up, and the army of occupation was recalled from all its garrisons.

On the 8th of June, Napoleon, at the side of Victor Emmanuel, made a triumphal entry into Milan, where he addressed the people in high-sounding speeches, the Austrians, meanwhile, continuing their retreat as far as the Mincio, where they took up a new position in the middle of a quadrangle of fortifications, Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnago.

The misfortunes that had befallen Austria confirmed and strengthened Sardinia in its ideal of Italian unity, and helped to bring about the fall of the lesser Italian sovereignties. In April the archduke Leopold of Tuscany had been forced to leave Florence and place himself under the protection of Austria. A provisory government was established under the protectorate of the king of Piedmont. But this arrangement did not meet Napoleon’s views. His secret design was to give the Tuscan throne to his cousin, Louis Napoleon, the son-in-law of Victor Emmanuel, that there might gradually grow up in Italy a circle of states tributary to France which would hinder the dream of Italian unity from ever being realised.

Unionist enthusiasm had already burned too high, however, for political or diplomatic schemes to avail against it. All over the land the flag of united Italy was raised, and conjunction demanded with Sardinia. Bologna declared itself free from the pope and invoked the dictatorship of the king of Sardinia. Many other cities of the pontifical state followed this example, indeed the greater part of the pontifical possessions would have fallen away from Rome had not the terrible storming of Perugia by the pope’s Swiss guard spread such dismay that Ancona, Ferrara, and Ravenna for a while remained true.

When Austria became convinced that from neither Prussia nor Germany was help to be expected, it determined to try again single-handed the fortunes of war. Following the example of Napoleon the emperor Francis Joseph led his troops in person, and the incapable Gyulay was allowed to sink into oblivion. But even under the new leaders Austria’s operations were not crowned with success; the second encounter with the allied troops which took place beyond the Mincio resulted in a defeat for the Austrians--once more on account of serious strategical errors.

Napoleon, informed of the weak points of this position, sent his main column against the defective centre which occupied a hill near Solferino. After a murderous battle, June 24th, 1859, the height was captured by the French, despite the heroic resistance of the Austrians, and the imperial army was divided into two parts. A second blow struck by Napoleon near Cavriani met with a like success, the Austrian leaders having issued conflicting orders that brought the troops into much confusion. Benedek, who had twice repulsed the Sardinians near San Martino, continued the battle several hours after it was practically lost to the Austrians; then a severe storm came up which enabled them to retire in good order. In this engagement Marshal Niel distinguished himself above all the other leaders on the French side. It was a bloody day, with a loss of 13,000 resulting to the Austrians. On the side of the allies the loss was even heavier owing to the greater peril to which they had been exposed in attacking the height. The victory of Solferino was a fresh leaf in the laurel-crown of France, and contributed not a little to confirm Napoleon in possession of the throne.

For various reasons Napoleon, a man of caution and, self-control, determined to soften as much as possible the sting of defeat to his humiliated foe, and despatched to Francis Joseph proposals of truce which were accepted and confirmed at Villafranca. Three days later a personal meeting took place between the emperors at which the preliminaries of peace were arranged. Napoleon represented earnestly to the young Francis Joseph how isolated Austria stood among the nations. It was agreed that Lombardy should be ceded to France with the exception of Peschiera and Mantua, that Italy should form a confederacy of states under the general direction of the pope, and that the restoration of the sovereigns of Tuscany and Modena, stipulated by Austria, should take place unhindered. For the final settlement of these points, plenipotentiaries from both realms were to meet at Zurich.

The terms of peace agreed upon at Villafranca, and ratified in all essential respects at Zurich, dealt the death-blow to Austria’s influence in the Apennine peninsula, and laid the foundation, to an extent far exceeding Napoleon’s expectations, for the national unity of Italy. The rest could be left in the hands of the Italians themselves. Far from restoring their former masters to the throne the subjects of the expulsed or fugitive princes hastened to confirm in a general assembly the disposition of the old dynasties, and annexed themselves to Sardinia.

THE PAPACY VS. UNITY

We have seen how, before the battle of Solferino, Modena and Parma as well as Tuscany had declared in favour of union with Piedmont. After the Peace of Villafranca the states south of the Po united under Garibaldi in a military league which had for object the repulsion of all attacks from without and the hindrance of all attempts at restoration on the part of the particularists and reactionists within. Even Bologna and a great part of the Romagna withdrew from the pontifical state and petitioned Victor Emmanuel to take them under his protection. This request was not refused however hot might be the wrath of the holy father. Under the leadership of D’Azeglio the necessary steps towards union with Sardinia were taken throughout Romagna, and by New Year of 1860, a specially established ministry deliberated on the affairs of the new-fledged state of middle Italy, to which was given the name of Emilia, from the old Via Æmilia of Rome.

Neither the curses of the Vatican nor the wrath of the ultramontanes all over Europe could retard in the least degree the march of events. Although the confederation decided upon at Villafranca and Zurich was never made a fact, owing to the disinclination of Austria and the pope to institute the necessary reforms, the neutral attitude maintained by England and France yet materially assisted Italy to realise her dream of national unity. Towards the end of 1859 a pamphlet published in Paris entitled Pope and Congress first startled the world with the thought that it was time the temporal power of the pope should cease, that his rule ought hereafter to be confined to the precincts of Rome itself. This naturally threw the whole Catholic world in an uproar, and elicited from the pope repeated violent denunciations, yet in the course of time the idea became an accomplished fact. Napoleon had never forgotten that the holy father had refused him consecration at the time of his coronation.

[Sidenote: [1860-1861 A.D.]]

The union of the middle Italian state’s with Sardinia was the forerunner of all those “annexations” which was soon to transform completely the character of the peninsula. Napoleon was willing to permit the expansion of the upper Italian kingdom provided Savoy and the countship of Nice be ceded to France. From the time of Cavour’s resumption of his place in the ministry in January, Napoleon and the crafty minister exerted every art known to diplomacy to bring about the end they had in view. At last in March, 1860, the popular vote was obtained which gave Savoy and Nice to France and made Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Roman legations a part of the kingdom of Sardinia. The pope excommunicated all who had taken part or even connived at this despoliation of Rome; but the papal bull, once so formidable a weapon, had in the course of time lost much of its early terrors. The 2nd of April witnessed the opening of the first Italian parliament, in which were representatives not only from Sardinia and Lombardy, but from Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and the Roman legations. “Our fatherland is no longer the Italy of Rome,” declared the crown speech, “nor of the Middle Ages; neither shall it be the arena wherein shall meet for combat the ambitions of all nations. Now and forever it is the Italy of the Italians.”

GARIBALDI DRIVES THE BOURBONS FROM SICILY

With the Peace of Zurich and the “annexation” that followed closed the first act in the drama of Italy’s freedom. The way had been paved thereto by the conviction that had gained ground among the cultivated classes since 1848 that only by a union of the whole country under the constitutional monarchy of Sardinia could any stable and permanent national position be obtained. To accomplish this end all the revolutionary and nationalist forces made common cause, and chose as their scene of action the kingdom of Naples and Sicily, which had lately passed into the hands of Francis II, the inexperienced son of Ferdinand II. The French and Russian ambassadors had in vain endeavoured, after the Peace of Villafranca, to bring about an alliance between Naples and Piedmont, thinking thus to frustrate all the efforts of the revolutionists; but the policy of tradition, which persisted in placing trust in Austria, prevailed even with the new king. By his refusal to espouse the cause of Italian unity Francis II precipitated the fall of the Bourbon dynasty and the dissolution of the Neapolitan-Sicilian kingdom.

The project of attacking a kingdom that had at its command a well-organised military force of 150,000 men was indeed a bold one; but tyranny had prepared the ground for the operations of the secret societies, and the indifference with which the warnings of the French and Russian ambassadors were received, together with the dismissal of the Swiss mercenaries, robbed the throne of its strongest and most trustworthy support at the precise moment when Garibaldi and his associates had planned to strike a decisive blow.

On the 6th of May Garibaldi set sail with 1,062 volunteers from Genoa without suffering any hinderance from the Sardinian authorities, and on the 11th of May landed at Marsala, on the west coast of Sicily. To the protest of the king of Naples and of the German courts against the impunity allowed a band of “sea-robbers,” Turin made reply that since the expedition was a private enterprise undertaken by Garibaldi and his associates, the Piedmontese authorities had no right to interfere. Before Garibaldi’s departure, however, Cavour had written to Persano: “We must support the revolution, but it must have all the appearance, in the eyes of Europe, of a volunteer enterprise.”[34]

After Garibaldi had disembarked with his immediate followers he withdrew to the mountains and gathered about him, near Salemi, the scattered fragments of his volunteer corps. On the 14th of May, when the number of men had increased to 4,000 he issued a proclamation in which, in the name of Victor Emmanuel, king of Italy, he declared himself dictator over the realm of Sicily.

After several successful encounters with the king’s troops Garibaldi pressed towards the capital by way of Calatafimi and Misilmeri, keeping his confederates informed of his movements by means of watch-fires at night. On the 27th of May he stood before Palermo and immediately gave the signal for attack. In a few hours the city, whose population had risen with one accord to support the invaders, had nearly passed into the hands of Garibaldi, when General Lanza, who had been despatched to the island by the young king with an important force, caused the city to be so heavily bombarded by the citadel and ships of war in the harbour, that the next day more than half of it lay in ruins. By the intermediary of the English admiral a truce was arranged which ended with the withdrawal of the Neapolitan troops and ships, and the delivering over of the city to the revolutionists.

Almost incalculable were the effects of these events in Palermo. By them the monarchy was shaken to its base and the name of Garibaldi carried into every corner of the world. At the court of Naples confidence was totally destroyed. In vain the king sought to prop his tottering throne by restoring the constitution of 1848.

Six weeks after the victory at Palermo the “dictator” Garibaldi set sail for Messina without having fulfilled the expectations of Turin that he would announce the annexation of Sicily to Sardinia. In three days he took the fortress of Milazzo, and shortly after the commander of Messina effected a truce by the terms of which the city, with the exception of the citadel, was to be evacuated by the Neapolitan troops. Europe learned with astonishment of the first rapid successes of the great agitator, but his exploits on the mainland were to excite still greater wonder. His further progress through the southern part of the peninsula was one long triumph; nowhere was resolute opposition offered him. On the 5th of September he arrived at Eboli, not far from Salerno. The very name of Garibaldi exercised a potent spell over the people; to them he appeared as the instrument of God on earth, the discharger of a providential mission.

On the 6th of September Francis II left Naples and withdrew, with the 40,000 men who still remained to him, to the fortresses of Gaeta and Capua. The day following Garibaldi made his formal entrance into Naples in the midst of the acclamations of the people. He established a provisory government, but still deferred sending news of annexation to Piedmont. The leaders of the radical parties had filled the popular demi-god with distrust against the policy of Cavour and it was not until he was joined by Pallavicino, the martyr of Spielberg, that he again made common cause with the unionists. The foreign powers preserved a strictly neutral attitude throughout, and Napoleon’s efforts to effect the united intervention of France and England failed before the determined resistance of Palmerston and Russell.

While these events were in progress the excitement of the Italian people reached fever-heat. The fall of the Bourbon dynasty in Naples, which was now seen to be imminent, would make the union of the Apennine peninsula under the sceptre of Victor Emmanuel almost an accomplished fact. The boast of Garibaldi that from the Quirinal itself, its national capital, he would announce the birth of the United Italian kingdom, found an echo in the hearts of the people who made it apparent in every way that they would be satisfied with no less a victory. But the papal government at Rome opposed threats of excommunication to every effort of the French emperor towards reform, and a cry of horror arose from the devout all over Europe at the danger to which religion would be exposed should there be any further encroachments upon the temporal power of the pope.

There were thus but two ways left open to Napoleon; either to allow the Italian revolution to have free play, in which case Garibaldi would without doubt make an end of the temporal supremacy of the pope and select Rome as the capital of the Italian kingdom, or to permit an alliance between Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel whereby a natural limit would be placed to the revolution, and the danger that Mazzini and the “Action” party might gain the upper hand would be removed. Napoleon chose the latter course. There is little doubt of his having sent word to the king that the latter might add Umbria and the Marches to his realm, and send his forces to occupy Naples provided he would leave Rome to the occupation of the French. However this may be, in the early days of September two divisions of the Sardinian army, under the minister of war Fanti and General Cialdini, drew near the border of the papal states.

The entrance of the Piedmontese troops was the signal for a general uprising of the people. In Pesaro, Montefeltre, Sinigaglia, and Urbino provisory governments were established, and deputations were sent to Turin. The Sardinian field-marshal laid before General Lamoricière and the papal court the demand that the people should be allowed to follow their will in all the papal states; this being rejected with indignation General Fanti advanced into Umbria, while Cialdini proceeded to the occupation of the Marches. On both sides great bravery was shown, but the papal troops were finally defeated and put to rout. Lamoricière fled with only a handful of followers, to Ancona which was obliged to surrender, after having been besieged by Cialdini on the land side and by the Sardinian admiral Persano from the sea. A few days later Victor Emmanuel arrived in Ancona and assumed command in person of all his forces.

The intention of the king in taking over the command of the army had been to effect, in conjunction with Garibaldi, the conquest of the kingdom of Naples. The attempt on the part of the volunteers to press forward as far as Capua had been balked by their defeat at Cajazzo. Although the open and straightforward revolutionist leader had little liking for Cavour, the man of devious ways and unidealistic views, he felt himself drawn by many common qualities towards the king in whom he beheld the “liberator” of Italy. Thus it was not difficult for his friend Pallavicino to induce him to adopt for his watchword, “One undivided Italy under the sceptre of the house of Savoy.” When Victor Emmanuel took up his position at the head of the united troops in Sessia, Garibaldi laid at his feet the dictatorship of Naples, and transferred to him the mission of making Italy free and giving her a place among the nations of the earth. “I am ready to obey you, Sire,” he said; then, after riding into Naples at the side of the king and commending his followers to the monarch’s favour and protection, he retired to a small property he possessed on the lonely island of Capri, refusing all honours and rewards. This was the greatest moment in the agitated life of the Italian patriot, the one in which he achieved the conquest of himself.

From now on, the war operations assumed a more definite character. After the capture of Capua by the Piedmontese and Garibaldians, King Francis, with the remnant of his best troops, was driven into the fort of Gaeta, while Victor Emmanuel, after a visit to Palermo, took possession of the double kingdom of Sicily and disbanded the Garibaldian troops, dismissing some of them to their homes and taking others into the Sardinian army.

Gaeta had now become the last bulwark of the kingdom of Naples and the Bourbon dynasty. The valorous defence of the sea-port town, during which the unfortunate young queen Maria of Bavaria displayed remarkable heroism, was afterward to constitute the one praiseworthy period in the short regency of Francis II.

The appeals for help of the beleaguered Bourbon king to the different powers of Europe failing to bring about any armed intervention, and his manifestos addressed to the Sicilian people resulting in no uprisings in his favour, lack of food and ammunition finally compelled the king to capitulate. On the 13th of February, 1861, he embarked on a French ship for Rome where he resided for the next ten years, constantly supported by the hope that his partisans in Naples would bring about a counter-revolution which would reinstate him on the throne. The following month the citadel of Messina also surrendered to General Cialdini.

With this event the kingdom of both Sicilies came to an end, and the supremacy of the Bourbons was forever destroyed in the beautiful peninsula. On the 18th of February, King Victor Emmanuel assembled in Turin about his throne representatives from all those states which acknowledged his rule, and with their joyful acquiescence adopted for himself and his legitimate descendants the title of “king of Italy.” (Law of March 17th, 1861.) The protests of the dethroned princes as well as of the pope and the emperor of Austria were received as so many empty words.

In this manner the impossible had been accomplished; the various states of Italy with the exception of Austrian Venice in the northwest and the papal city of Rome with its surroundings, had been united into a single kingdom. Cavour’s statecraft, Victor Emmanuel’s firmness and decision, Garibaldi’s patriot devotion, the political tact shown by the educated classes, had all contributed to bring about the wonderful result; and now that it had been brought about, equally powerful factors would be needed to make permanent the newly acquired possessions of freedom and unity.

A safe and satisfactory solution of the “Roman question” could be attained only by gradually accustoming the Catholic world to the idea of the separation of the spiritual power from the temporal. According to Cavour’s idea the papacy should be relieved from all obligations of worldly rule that it might the better achieve the full glory of its special mission--the spiritual guidance of Catholic Christendom. “A free church is a free state,” was the watchword of the question as understood by Cavour; but an offer which he made to the pope embodying those conditions was indignantly refused; it would be indeed a work of time to reconcile the Catholic world to the idea of a church without territorial possessions.

THE DEATH OF CAVOUR AND THE REVOLT OF GARIBALDI

Such being the condition of affairs the seditious utterances of a band of agitators calling themselves “Italians of the Italians” caused Cavour no little trouble and annoyance. Garibaldi himself, who had passed the greater part of his life in arms against monarchical power, and who in his idealism and self-sacrificing love of freedom and country was incapable of seeing existing conditions exactly as they were, was not a stranger to some of these new revolutionary movements. On the 20th of April, 1861, he appeared in the Turin parliament to condemn the action taken in disbanding his army of volunteers, and to protest against the treatment accorded some of his former comrades-at-arms. He was finally pacified and induced to return to his lonely island life by the persuasive representations of Cavour.

Shortly afterward, June 6th, 1861, occurred the death of Count Cavour, the greatest statesman the world had seen since Cardinal Richelieu. He was but fifty-one years of age, and his untimely end was undoubtedly brought about by overwork and the feverish anxiety in which his later years were passed. “For twelve years,” he declared, “I have been a conspirator in the cause of my country’s freedom--a most unique conspirator; I have avowed my aim in parliament and in every court of Europe, and now at the last I have for fellow-conspirators twenty-five millions of Italians.” His life-work had not quite reached completion, his last idea was little more than the vision of a dream; but he had at last the satisfaction of seeing his own creation, the young kingdom of Italy, advancing on the road to maturity.[g]

The chief thought which had haunted him in the midst of his delirium was the south. “Oh! there is great corruption down there, but it is not their fault, poor things. The country is demoralised but it is not by hurting it that it will improve.” And above all that the state should not force itself upon it, nor impose upon it the means of absolute governors. This was the chief thought of his brief illness and it was also his political testament. To-day after many years the boundless faith placed by the great minister in the salutary influence of liberty has been solemnly confirmed by the facts. The south relinquished brigandage and accomplished the work of annexation without ever veiling the statue of liberty.

The highest praise that can be given to Count Cavour was made by a great statesman whose name was not less celebrated than that of the great minister, Lord Palmerston. “The name of Cavour,” he said before the British parliament, “will always live, and will be embalmed in the memory, in the gratitude, and in the admiration of the human race. The story of which he is the ornament is truly wonderful, and the most romantic in the annals of the world. We have seen a people under his direction and authority wake up from the sleep of two centuries.”[c]

[Sidenote: [1862-1863 A.D.]]

It behoved Cavour’s successor, Ricasoli, to follow closely in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor and confine his attention to the interior up-building of the state. He repeated Cavour’s attempt to negotiate with Rome for the establishment of a free church in a free state, but the Florentine statesman was looked upon as almost a foreigner by the papal advisers, and France unqualifiedly rejected the intervention he proposed. He resigned his office in March, 1862, whereupon Rattazzi was appointed head of the ministry.

The first official acts of the new minister were to take back into the army Garibaldi’s former volunteers, and to proclaim that the parliamentary decree of March 27th, 1861, which designated Rome as the future capital of the kingdom, must be carried out. Garibaldi being summoned from his island to assume the lead in all these undertakings the “Action” party were again fired with revolutionary ardour. Not only Rome and Venice were to be conquered, but all the Italian-speaking populations of the Tyrol and the other side of Adria were to be united under the banner of the new kingdom. Soon the tide of agitation swelled so high that the administration saw itself obliged to take strong measures to protect the country from a general war. Among the most turbulent leaders who were taken prisoners were many friends and followers of Garibaldi.

It was a misfortune for Italy that no regular sphere of activity was offered this devoted patriot in the interior administration of his country, where his high and noble qualities might have been utilised without much power of initiative being left to his defective political sense. He determined now to repeat against Rome the course of procedure that had succeeded with Naples two years ago. He set sail from Genoa and landed at Palermo where a large force of armed volunteers crowded under his banner, thirsting to strike some decisive blow that would shake from Italy the last survival of foreign rule, and to win for the kingdom its natural capital. Inasmuch as a rumour was spreading abroad which might find credence in foreign countries that the administration was secretly shielding the undertaking, and as Napoleon himself had threatened to occupy Naples if the Turin cabinet did not at once take steps to crush the revolutionary movement, the king now issued a proclamation declaring all men traitors to the flag of Italy who overstepped the limits of the law and participated in any unwarrantable act of violence or aggression.

Nevertheless, Garibaldi persisted in his design which was to “enter Rome as a conqueror or die within its walls.” On the 24th of August he landed at Melito, and passing Reggio whose strong fortifications he did not venture to attack, advanced at once into the Calabrian mountains. Meanwhile, General Cialdini had despatched a division of the main army under Colonel Pallavicini, in pursuit of the volunteers, and at Aspromonte a serious encounter took place. Garibaldi, wounded and taken prisoner, together with many of his followers, was brought back in a government steamer to Barignano, on the Gulf of Spezia, where he endured a long and painful malady.[35]

FLORENCE BECOMES THE CAPITAL

[Sidenote: [1863-1866 A.D.]]

After several fruitless attempts on the part of French diplomats to bring about some kind of an understanding between the pope and Victor Emmanuel, an agreement was entered into by France and Italy, according to which the royal residence was to be transferred from Turin to Florence, and the French troops of occupation were gradually to be withdrawn from Rome. With the pope it was agreed that no hindrance should be placed in the way of the organisation, by the papal authorities, of an army which should be sufficiently large to support the authority of the holy father and to preserve peace in the interior and on the borders, but not large enough to offer resistance to the army of the king.

The provisions of this “September convention” aroused great dissatisfaction in Turin. Let Rome be chosen as the national capital and no outcry would be raised, but why should the Piedmontese be expected to make a sacrifice in favour of Florence? Sullen displeasure soon gave place to open protestations and street excesses. Instead of trying to put down the disturbance by mild measures the ministry made the mistake of using harsh ones. A great number of rioters were killed or wounded. The distress of the city, which had so long been loyal to himself and his house, pained the king deeply; and dissolving the present ministry he gave the formation of a new one into the hands of General Lamarmora, a Piedmontese by birth.

Peace succeeded quickly upon this change, but the city was none the less obliged to undergo its fate. During the following month parliament decreed the transfer of the royal residence, and preparations were at once begun for moving the court and all the paraphernalia of government to the ancient city on the Arno. On the morning of the 3rd of February, without notice or farewell, Victor Emmanuel left behind him his former capital and proceeded to Florence, where he was henceforth to have his abode.

Anger was felt in Rome that France and Italy should have held a convention without seeking the co-operation of the pope. The latter, to show how few concessions he was willing to make to modern ideas, shortly after astonished the world by publishing an Encyclica and Syllabus in which, in an array of maxims and admonitions, he condemned and cast aside as worthless all the attainments of modern times in the different fields of philosophy, science, and religion. These remarkable expressions of belief, revealing as they did a degree of enlightenment not far exceeding that of the Middle Ages, made plain to the world how hopeless would be any attempt to come to an understanding with the man who could frame them, and how unwilling and morally incapable he was of recognising the rights and necessities of present-day humanity.

The Italian chamber of deputies proceeded in its very next session to institute further changes and reforms. Civil marriage was introduced, the suppression of convents, as well as the secularisation of churchly possessions, was decided upon, and the abolition of capital punishment was proposed. In spite of the difficult financial position in which the kingdom was placed as a result of the war of freedom in which it had been engaged, and the expenses consequent upon its reorganisation, Victor Emmanuel declared his readiness to assume a great part of the Roman debt provided the papacy would give its recognition to the new state. This attempt met with the same success that had attended all others: to every overture the pope opposed his usual reply, “Non possumus.”[g]

THE WAR OF 1866 AND ANNEXATION OF VENICE

Italy still looked with hungry eyes at the rich Venetian territory which still remained to Austria. In 1866 Prussia and Austria fell into disputes which culminated in war, as described in the histories of Austria and Prussia. In March, Prussia was glad to secure the alliance of Italy, promising to continue war until Austria gave up to Italy the whole mainland of Venice except the city itself and the quadrilateral of fortresses. June 20th Italy declared war on Austria, which sent an army of 180,000 into the peninsula, and 27 ships. Against these Italy raised 300,000 men as well as a fleet of 36 vessels. The quadrilateral, however, gave the Austrians an excellent base, as Bertolini[c] says, as well as a formidable bulwark. The Italians lacked strategists, and though the king and Prince Humbert [Umberto] led them, they met with no success. March 24th they were surprised with loss, and at Custozza where, according to Bertolini,[c] they had only 52,000 men to the Austrians’ 75,000, they fought a drawn battle, but retreated after a loss of 3,000 men and 4,000 prisoners. Garibaldi’s volunteers, after some slight success at Monte Suello July 3rd, were surprised and completely routed at Vezza, July 5th. He retrieved his fortunes, however, at Ampola (July 16th-19th), Bezzea and Lardaro (July 21st), when word came of an armistice. The navy was also badly defeated at Lissa, July 17th. Admiral Persano on July 18th bombarded the Austrian shore batteries, but although he succeeded in temporarily silencing most of the guns he was unable to effect a landing. Two days later the Austrian fleet appeared in the harbour and at once gave battle to the Italian fleet. In this fight the Italian admiral seems to have lost his head completely, and to have given either conflicting orders, or no orders at all. The result was a complete victory for the Austrians.

The Prussians had, however, gone from victory to victory, finally reaching the triumph of Sadowa, or Königgrätz, July 5th. Austria in despair and in need of troops made Napoleon III a present of Venetia. The Italians felt it an “ignominy” to accept Venetia as a gift from the French, but finally terms were agreed upon with Austria direct, by which Italy received all the Venetian provinces, and the Iron Crown of the Lombards, the freedom of service of all Lombards in the Austrian army. Italy assumed the Lombardo-Venetian debt of 64,000,000 francs and agreed to pay 35,000,000 francs to Austria. October 19th, 1866, the Italian flag was hoisted on St. Mark’s. A plebiscite was taken and 647,384 citizens voted for the union under the constitutional monarchy of Victor Emmanuel, while only 69 voted against it. November 7th Victor Emmanuel made his formal entry into Venice amidst great enthusiasm.[a]

FOOTNOTES

[32] [According to Bulle[d] Cavour had higher plans for Clotilde’s marriage, but yielded for diplomacy’s sake.]

[33] [The losses were considerable on both sides; on the French side there were 246 officers and 3,463 men dead or wounded; and 735 missing. The Austrians had 281 officers, 3,432 men dead or wounded, and 4,000 missing. But the result of the battle was to open Milan to the French.--DELORD.[e]]

[34] [“La Farina and his National Society opened up a way--the helper was the government but the help came from a private person so the government was not involved. The proof of this is to be found in the letter of La Farina to Count Cavour written from Bristo Arsizio and dated April 24th, 1860, in which Farina told the minister that the cases (of arms) which were expected from Modena had not reached Genoa or the station at Piacenza and deplored this delay, the reason of which he did not know. The cases arrived the same day at Genoa and news of them was telegraphed. Letter book No. 595 to La Farina by the vice-governor.”--BERTOLINI.[c]]

[35] [The hero of Italy, like the heroine of France, risen from among the people to place the king at the head of an emancipated nation, after having succeeded beyond all probability in the first part of his undertaking, failed in the second, wounded and made prisoner as was Joan of Arc. Conducted to the fort of Varignano, in the Gulf of Spezia, Garibaldi was the object of a universal sympathy. Men disapproved of his perilous expedition; but what he had attempted was, at bottom, what all the world desired. An amnesty was granted by the king.--HENNEGUY.[f]]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXI. THE COMPLETION OF ITALIAN UNITY

Italy in 1814 was scarcely aroused to a national consciousness; in 1849 that consciousness was a dominant fact. Out of Carbonari plottings to mitigate the tyranny of local despots, out of the failures of 1820, ’21 and ’31, out of Mazzini’s Young Italy, and the preachings of Gioberti, had developed a strong and abiding desire not only for liberty, not only for independence, but also for unity, without which these could not endure. The idea of Nationality had sprung up in Italian hearts. The race which had given Christendom a religion, which had expressed itself in literature and in art and in science, and which had once led the world in commerce and industry, this race had at length set itself to win what it had hitherto lacked,--political freedom. Italy was to be no longer a geographical expression, but a nation.--THAYER.[b]

[Sidenote: [1867-1878 A.D.]]

The minister Ricasoli, who had the good fortune to associate his name with the union of Venetia to the kingdom of Italy, lived only a few months after the conclusion of peace with Austria. He had decided to reopen negotiations with the Roman court to determine at least those matters which had a purely ecclesiastical character. To this end he sent Tonello to Rome to treat on the business of the vacant episcopal seats. The affair was successful from the point of view of the Italian government; but it was not equally so with regard to that of the interest of the country.

[Sidenote: [1867 A.D.]]

Encouraged by this success the minister composed a plan of laws in which the relations of the church with the state were regulated upon the principle of the entire independence of the two powers. This hybrid law managed by Ricasoli with the ministers of finance and justice was presented to the chamber on the 17th of January, 1867. Before it was pronounced the country had expressed its discontent by means of the press. The Venetian provinces protested in public reunions, but the government prohibited these meetings. At the elections, however, the abstention of the clericals from the voting brought in a majority of the new chamber for the party opposed to the ecclesiastical law, and the minister, seeing the parliamentary party, sent in his resignation which was accepted.

Then Rattazzi reappeared upon the scene “like the doctor in extremis,” to use the phrase of Princess Rattazzi,[c] the author of his memoir. With him there returned those seditious and equivocal circumventions which again distressed Italy as the work of that fatal man. Borne upon the shields of the party of action which regarded him as its mind, as it had looked upon Garibaldi as its arm, he suddenly prepared for the work. And in the meantime while Sicily was a martyr to cholera and parliament was occupied in the important business of the liquidation of the Ecclesiastical Act, the party of action was agitating for hastening the solution of the Roman question. This question, as aforesaid, entered upon a new phase after the departure of the French from Rome and a short time after the solution of the Venetian question.

THE REVOLT OF GARIBALDI

The first announcement of the new proposals of the party of action was a proclamation from Garibaldi, published in July of 1867, which invited the Romans to rebel and the Italians to hold themselves in readiness to help him. The agitation once created, it was increased and fomented by every means; and as the waves rose the words of the great patriot became more ardent and violent. At Geneva at the council of peace, and at Balgirate before a maddened multitude the hero incited them against “the covey of vipers” which had made its nest at Rome; and on the 16th of September he published an address to Romans in which he promised them the aid of 100,000 youths “who feared they were too many to share the miserable glory of expelling from Italy the mercenaries and jugglers.” The deeds followed the words. At Florence and other places secret preparations were made for an armed expedition into the Roman states and many young men were sent towards the frontier.

What was the government doing meanwhile?

The words of the government were clear, but its deeds were obscure, and in fact the orders given by Rattazzi to the political authorities were so flaccid and vague that it would have been thought they were only a show, and that the minister secretly approved the designs of Garibaldi. What a difference between Cavour and Rattazzi! With Cavour as an ally Garibaldi made an epic, with Rattazzi a double tragedy. Two ways were open to Rattazzi, either to act according to the declaration made in the official diary of the 21st of September, or to act in the opposite way; sooner a war with France than a Mentana. He followed neither the one nor the other course but steered between the two, and brought fresh disaster upon his unhappy country.

When Garibaldi left Florence for Arezzo, to assume command of the volunteers stationed on the borders, the government, which had let him go so far, removed him from command and had him taken to the fortress of Alessandria. But it did nothing to disperse the volunteers who had received from Garibaldi himself the word of command to prosecute the undertaking; and soon afterwards terrified at his ardour the government sent the prisoner free to Caprera, without even exacting a promise to remain quietly there, thinking it was sufficient guarantee to have the island watched by a few warships. Meanwhile a band of Garibaldians of about 200 men entered Viterbo and there instituted a provisionary government under the name of “committee of insurrection.” At the same time two other companies passed the frontier.

But grave news arrived at that time from France. The French journals announced that preparations for a fresh Roman expedition were in progress at the port of Toulon, and following this announcement there came a note (October 19th) from the government saying that France would intervene with her forces if the Italian government did not put a stop to the Garibaldian movement. And whilst the government was discussing the course to take in such a contingency the news came that Garibaldi had fled from Caprera. It was the coup de grace of the minister Rattazzi. The same evening that Garibaldi arrived at Florence he sent in his resignation, and the king deputed Cialdini to form a new ministry (October 20th). Now followed the strange events which showed the embarrassment of the government. On one side it strove by means of the marquis Pepoli to persuade the emperor Napoleon that it was strong enough to suppress the Garibaldian movement; and on the other it let Garibaldi speak in public, stir the people, and go to Terni to head the movement raised by him. The central committee of Florence became a true war committee, although it continued to call itself one of succour, and it announced to all Italy in its proclamation of the 22nd of October that the insurrection had broken out in Rome.

But the news was not true. The reported Roman insurrection consisted in an attempt at rebellion by a hundred youths led by Cairoli, which, not being seconded by the people, was easily quelled. The misfortune of the first attempt did not quench the ardour of the patriots nor temper the audacity of the leaders of the enterprise. A victory gained October 25th by Garibaldi at Monterotondo over the papal troops fomented the enthusiasm of the insurgent youths so that they feared no danger, nor were they checked by any obstacle.

THE FRENCH INTERVENE AGAIN: MENTANA, OCTOBER 31ST

The dangers and obstacles increased immeasurably. After long vacillation the emperor seeing the impotence of the Italian government to end the Garibaldian invasion had determined on French intervention in the Roman state. Cialdini’s attempt having failed, the king committed to General Menabrea the task of forming a new administration. The new ministry made known its intentions in a royal proclamation dated October 27th, in which it repudiated the flag raised in the papal states, and invited the volunteers to enlist at once in the royal army. This proclamation aimed at a double result, the crushing of the Garibaldian invasion and the prevention of French intervention. But neither the one nor the other was achieved.

When the Italian government learned that the French had disembarked at Civitavecchia, they then decided to intervene and the royal troops occupied several places in the pontifical states. Although resolved to intervene, the government thought it well to offer to Garibaldi an opportunity of retiring with honour from an enterprise which, in the present state of affairs, could not be carried on without useless bloodshed and the exposing of the country to grave peril. But Garibaldi, far from accepting this anchor of salvation, as soon as he knew that the French had landed at Civitavecchia issued a proclamation to his followers encouraging them to remain intrepid in the struggle and inviting them to unite with him at Tivoli so that the unification of the country might be compassed by some means (October 31st). The volunteer column had scarcely passed Mentana when Garibaldi received the news of a vigorous attack on his vanguard by the papal zouaves. Hearing this the general returned to Mentana to avoid the danger of having his left flank turned and endeavoured to keep in his rear the rest of the troops that were in the district (November 3rd). He did not go far before the enemy appeared. Repulsed at the first attack, they shortly returned with formidable reinforcements among which were 1,500 Frenchmen. The volunteers could ill stand against an enemy so superior in numbers and armed with good weapons. The châssepots did horrible execution. Garibaldi ordered a retreat, took leave of his followers, and, having taken steps for disbanding the volunteer corps, he recrossed the frontier. The Italian government ignorant of his intentions had him arrested and kept in custody until the excitement had calmed down.

The châssepots had conquered; the compact of September was destroyed; Rome was once more in the hands of the French, and Turin wept for a sacrifice which had been in vain. The royal troops commanded by Cadorna remained in the pontifical territories, but the French minister having protested against this occupation, the government, not wishing further to aggravate an already strained situation, ordered them to be recalled and the king took advantage of this act of abnegation to send a letter to the emperor Napoleon in which he conjured him, in the interest of the Napoleonic dynasty, to break definitely with the clerical party and order the immediate recall of the troops from Rome.

But Napoleon III was deaf to this advice, which was nevertheless wise; he would not break the hybrid union with the clerical party, and reaped from it, as recompense, the union in the same grave of the papal monarchy and the Napoleonic empire. The answer to Pepoli’s letter was given by the French minister of foreign affairs, Rouher, the faithful executor and interpreter of his masters’ policy. In the discussion which took place in the legislative assembly on the new expedition to Rome, this minister said that the Italians had “never had Rome.”

“We will show him his ‘Never (jamais),’” exclaimed Victor Emmanuel in good Piedmontese, and he was not satisfied until the petulant minister had apologised for the unfortunate word, saying it had escaped him in the heat of an impromptu speech.

[Sidenote: [1868-1869 A.D.]]

The king asked the same Menabrea to form a new ministry under his presidency. Of the old ministers seven remained. The truce, which by tacit consent was now enjoyed, gave the new ministry an opportunity of occupying themselves seriously with financial questions, which since the war of 1866 had again become very grave. This war had in fact cost Italy six hundred millions besides the debt contracted by the acquisition of Venetia; the forced tariff had raised the price of gold to fifteen per cent., causing grave damage to private contracts, and to the state, which was obliged each year to acquire gold for the payment of the interest of government securities abroad; and with the increase of the tax on gold had come the depression of Italian consols, which had fallen to 36 per cent., and in consequence sinister rumours were circulating in the country and abroad to the effect that Italy would soon be bankrupt. In the midst of the lugubrious prognostications made about her she displayed fresh activity and vigour; and in the act which enabled her to support the new subsidies imposed by the diminished finances of the state, she initiated a new era of economical prosperity, which was soon to bring forth splendid and unexpected fruit.

The Florentine, Cambrai Digny, was then at the head of the financial department. He made himself the defender of the threatened honour of his country, and demanded that for great evils extreme remedies should be employed.

THE ROMAN QUESTION RENEWED

While parliament was occupied with the financial question, the minister, Menabrea, was working to induce the French government to put in force again the September convention, and to recall her troops from Rome. The Italian minister offered to guarantee to the pope perfect liberty for the exercise of his spiritual power, and to assume for Italy a considerable part of the pontifical debt. In guarantee of the serious nature of his offer, he pointed to the elements of the authority to be henceforth recognised in the kingdom, which would lead to the disappearance of all traces of agitation and to the closing forever of the era of factious revolutions, of conspiracies and of individual initiative. But the French government did not share these rose-coloured visions of the Italian minister, and brought forward information proving the existence of Mazzinian workings in the peninsula. Menabrea, seeing there was nothing more to do, resigned his diplomatic position in the chamber of deputies at the end of March, 1869.

No better effect resulted from another much more important attempt, made this time by the king, Victor Emmanuel. Moved by the desire of re-establishing with Napoleon III the friendly relations interrupted by the events of 1867, and of assuring the preservation of peace in Europe, which the strained relations existing between France and Prussia threatened to disturb, he took the initiative of proposing a triple alliance between Italy, France, and Austria, of which the fundamental condition was the evacuation of Rome by the French troops, and the formal recognition of the principle of non-intervention in Italian affairs. The three contracting powers would then have acted together in all important questions of European politics, guaranteeing reciprocally the integrity of their respective territories and not taking any resolution of general importance without the consent of all. But neither the persuasions of the emperor of Austria nor those of his cousin, Prince Jerome, were able to influence Napoleon’s decision. He held firm to his refusal with regard to the evacuation of Rome, and as this was the fundamental, the whole plan was abortive, and this on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War.

The year 1868 was celebrated by the marriage of the crown prince to his cousin Margaret of Savoy. The fiancée of Prince Humbert, an archduchess of Austria, having died, the minister Menabrea proposed to the king the granddaughter of the duke of Genoa as a wife for his son. The proposal pleased the king and the prince, and on the 22nd of April the marriage was celebrated. The new year opened with painful events, the application of the tax on flour giving rise to tumults and seditious movements which obliged the government to use measures of great severity. In Emilia and Roumania scenes of bloodshed and destruction occurred. General Cadorna, sent to this province to re-establish order, fulfilled his thankless task in such a way as to merit the praise of parliament.

The agitation by which the country was disturbed in 1869, was the work of the Mazzinians. Mazzini had proclaimed from London, “Italy must free herself from a monarchy, since it has shown that it will not and cannot give to Italy, either unity, independence, or liberty.” And the disciples of the prophet speedily translated the republican words into action, raising tumults and discussions in all the principal cities of Italy. As we have seen, the French government had given warning of the Mazzinian sect, deriving from thence a reason for refusing the evacuation of Rome by the French troops. The Mazzinians, to insure success, had endeavoured to corrupt the army, especially making their insidious advances to inferior officers. A few allowed themselves to be drawn into the trap and expiated their perjury with their lives. The case of Corporal Barsanti aroused general interest. He was a young man of twenty, the support and hope of his aged parents, but the minister of war Govone declared that if the army were not to be demoralised an example must be made, and Barsanti was shot August 27th, 1870, in the neighbourhood of Milan. A few days before this execution Mazzini by Govone’s orders had been arrested in Milan and brought under a strong guard to the fortress of Gaeta. With the removal of the chief, the republican agitation died away to give place to another and a very different one, which was that of the restoration of Rome to Italy and the final fall of the pope’s temporal power.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY PROCLAIMED (1869 A.D.)

The ministry of Lanza and Sella found itself from its birth face to face with extraordinary circumstances, demanding the greatest secrecy on the part of the Italian government if dangers and misfortunes were to be averted from the state. The convocation of the Vatican council was fixed for December 8th, 1869. In the speech from the crown, Victor Emmanuel had expressed the hope that from this assembly would issue some expression conciliating faith and science, religion and civil life. The assembly proclaimed instead the dogma of papal infallibility, thus setting the seal to the antithesis between church and state. As with the preceding ministry so with the new; the financial question was their principal care. The Franco-Prussian War broke out about the middle of July, 1870.

ROME TAKEN FROM THE POPE (1870 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1870-1871 A.D.]]

The ruin of the Napoleonic principality in 1870 removed half of the obstacles which had hitherto prevented Italy from solving the Roman question in a manner conformable to national interests. At the first French reverses the imperial government had recalled the garrison from Rome, declaring that they trusted to their loyalty for the faithful observance of the convention of September 15th. This was a strange appeal to the loyalty of the Italian government regarding what had been so disloyally set aside by the imperial government. However, the minister Lanza kept faithfully to the convention, impelled by a sentiment of noble honesty, so that it might not seem that Italy had taken advantage of the powerlessness caused by the defeats sustained by her ancient ally, to lay hands upon Rome. But when the empire fell and was succeeded by a republic all causes for scruples vanished and the duty of the government to settle the Roman question for the good of the nation could no longer be delayed.

In vain had Victor Emmanuel sent his envoy to Rome with an autograph letter in which he appealed to the heart of the pope “with the affection of a son, the loyalty of a king, and the soul of an Italian,” that he would permit the royal troops, already posted in the outskirts of Rome, to enter and occupy such positions in the Roman territory as was necessary for the maintenance of order and the safe-guarding of the pontiff. Pius IX held firmly to his refusal, saying he would yield to force but not to injustice.

Then it was necessary to resort to force. The government gave orders to General Raffaelle Cadorna to pass the borders with his troops, at the same time informing the European governments, by means of a circular letter, of the resolution taken and justifying its action by pointing out the impossibility of reconciling Italy with papal Rome and the necessity of procuring peace and security for Italy. The note then reassured the powers as to the steps Italy would take for the safeguard of the pope’s spiritual power so that his liberty and independence might be complete. On September 11th Cadorna entered the pontifical territories. On the 17th the Italian soldiers were at Civitavecchia, and on the 19th under the walls of Rome.

But Pius IX had determined on his course of conduct and was resolved to pursue it at any cost. His views were expressed in his letter written September 19th to General Kanzler, the commander-in-chief of the papal forces. In it Pius IX ordered Kanzler to treat with the enemy on the slightest breach of the walls of Rome “as the defence was solely to be sufficient to serve as proof of an act of violence and nothing more.” And so it happened; at half-past five on the morning of September 21st the Italian soldiers opened fire between the Pia and the Sorlara gates and at the gate of St. John and St. Pancras, and hardly was a breach made when the papal troops ceased fire and hoisted the white flag on all the batteries. A messenger was sent to Cadorna and it was speedily agreed that Rome should surrender all but the Leonine city,[36] which should for the present remain under the jurisdiction of the pope. Then the papal troops were awarded the honours of war, but were obliged to lay down arms and flags. The peasant soldiers were sent back to their homes and all foreigners despatched to their respective countries at the expense of the Italian government.[37]

THE PLEBISCITE

General Cadorna’s first act was to nominate a provisional government which should direct the affairs of the state until the people had decided which form of government they wished to have. October 2nd was fixed for the plebiscite. The people of the Roman provinces were called upon to answer whether they wished to be united under the constitutional government of Victor Emmanuel and his royal descendants. Out of 167,548 inscribed, 135,291 responded to the appeal; the ballot gave 133,681 ayes and 1,507 noes. Thus the Roman people placed with their own hands the burial stone on the kingdom of the popes.[38]

Victor Emmanuel in receiving the plebiscite declared that he was firmly resolved to uphold the liberty of the church and the independence of the sovereign pontiff. Thus was accomplished the last act of the redemption of Italy. The generation which had in its youth beheld Italy downtrodden, now in its maturer years had the joy of seeing her rise again a nation, free and united. And whoever writes the history of this great event can add to the ancient glories of liberty this new and more splendid triumph that under her ægis a nation arose and a principle made it one.

This year so fruitful in events closed with another extraordinary fact,--the offer of the Spanish crown to Prince Amadeo the second son of the Italian king. Having obtained the consent of his august father the young prince accepted a crown, which, offered to him under the most favourable auspices, was soon to become a crown of thorns. Two years had scarcely passed after his accession to the throne when as described in the history of Spain the young king surrounded by traitorous ministers and generals abdicated (February 11th, 1873) having miraculously escaped an attempt to assassinate him (February 18th, 1872).

Towards the end of 1870 Rome was visited by a terrible inundation of the Tiber which submerged a great part of the city. The clericals declared it to be the finger of God. Victor Emmanuel hastened to the scene of the disaster bestowing on the unfortunate Romans the comfort of his presence, his deeds, and his help. It is by such means that kings gain the love of their people and kingdoms are fortified.

While Gadda was preparing in Rome the premises for the transfer of the ministry, parliament was occupied with the law of the guarantees, thanks to which the co-existence in Rome of the two powers and the two governments each having complete liberty and independence of the other, was rendered possible. This was something quite new in history, and many, not all clericals, thought it impossible; but it became necessary when Pius IX who had rejected the advice of the Jesuits counselling him to leave Rome, voluntarily elected to stay.[e]

The taking possession of Rome by King Victor Emmanuel and the voluntary retirement of Pius IX to the Vatican closes the revolutionary era to which these two personages have given their names. It had led on the one hand to the constitutional unity of Italy, and on the other to the suppression of the states of the church,--the last vestige of ecclesiastical immunities of the Middle Ages to the exclusively spiritual constitution of the sovereign pontiff of universal Catholicism,--two of the most important changes accomplished in the history of politics and European civilisation.

The last years of the king’s and the pope’s lives spent behind the walls of the same city, have no further interest than what is offered by the application of the principles of a successful revolution and the experiment of the co-existence of two powers, rivals for long years, under new conditions of proximity and the dying down of the tempest.[f]

The law of guarantees voted by the chamber April 5th, 1871, declared that the person of the pontiff was sacred and inviolable, and royal honours were to be paid to him in the territory of his kingdom; that the holy see should have an annual donation of 3,225,000 lire; that the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and the Lateran neighbourhood, and Castel Gondulfo, with all their appurtenances and dependencies, should be at his disposal; that the pontiff should have complete liberty to perform the functions of his spiritual ministry; that the envoys from foreign countries to the holy see should enjoy all the usual prerogatives and immunities, according to international custom, regarding diplomatic agents; that the seminaries, academies, colleges, and Catholic institutions founded in Rome and the suburbs for the education of ecclesiastics should continue to be subservient to the holy see alone without any control from the scholastic authorities of the kingdom.

By this same law the relations of the state with the church were also regulated. All restriction on the right of the meeting of members of the Catholic clergy was abolished. The government of the kingdom renounced the right of nomination and preferment to the greater benefices. The bishops were exempted from taking the oath of allegiance to the king and the exequatur and the royal placet were abolished, and every other form of governmental assent in the publication and execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority. For hitherto there had been no separate provision for such acts, and these acts of authority regarding the disposal of ecclesiastical funds and the preferment to benefices great or small, excepting to those of Rome and the suburban sees, had been subject to the exequatur and royal placet. These were the principal enactments of the law of papal guarantees.

As might have been foreseen the pope did not accept them but the governments of Europe on the contrary acknowledged the law, recognising that it was impossible to arrange anything better calculated to secure the independence of the pontiff.

ROME AGAIN THE CAPITAL OF ITALY (1871 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1871 A.D.]]

In June, 1871, in pursuance of the engagements given by the government the transference of the capital was effected. On Sunday, July 2nd, the king made his solemn entry into Rome. What memories must have been evolved by this entry of the king of Italy into the eternal city, for from the triumphs of the Roman rulers, republicans or cæsars, to the expeditions of the Frank and German kings of the Middle Ages, Rome was full of splendid memories. But the former came to celebrate the triumph of their violence over some unfortunate nation, and the latter to revive the cæsarean institutions under the title of their ascendency over the other Christian nations of Europe--their empire over Italy.

In Victor Emmanuel’s entry into Rome force was replaced by the right of a nation to live free under the leadership of the great mother of Italy, from whom it had till now been separated. The pope did not come to meet and bless the king, but he who has the benediction of his country is in safety, and as he reached the Quirinal he exclaimed: “At last we are here and here we will stay.”[39]

To this solemn entry of the king of Italy to Rome other memorable events quickly succeeded. The inauguration of the Mont Cenis tunnel broke down the barrier of the Alps between Italy and France. Nations overthrow the barriers which nature has placed between them to facilitate the interchange of their products to their mutual benefit. It is the eve of fraternity among nations initiated on the ruins of centuries of strife.

On November 27th the Italian parliament assembled for the first time in Rome at Montecitorio. The speech from the throne was as the circumstances demanded, majestic and solemn. “Here where our people,” it said, “after being dispersed through many centuries, are gathered for the first time in the majesty of their representatives; here where we recognise the mother-country of our dreams, all things speak to us of greatness. At the same time all things remind us of our duty.” And further on it was announced that national unity had been accomplished without the interruption of friendly relations with other countries.

[Sidenote: [1872-1874 A.D.]]

The Lanza ministry had already entered upon the fourth year of its existence; and it was the first time since the founding of the kingdom of Italy that a ministry had lasted so long. And hardly was the transfer completed when the truce between the parties was broken, and the fall of the ministry ensued. In its latter days Italy had seen the death of three great patriots--Mazzini in 1872, Manzoni and Rattazzi in the following year. The time has not yet arrived for us to judge these men with a temperate mind or with a heart free from passion. Mazzini died at Pisa, March 10th, 1872; he had lived long enough to see Italy free and united; and although this did not correspond with his ideal of Italy, he could take pleasure in the thought of having helped so much to compass her resurrection and to introduce the conception of national unity which had for centuries been the ideal of philosophers, so that it became a national idea and a historical fact. Rattazzi died at an unfortunate moment on the eve of the accession to power of the Left. He could have instilled discipline into this heterogeneous party and rendered it a useful instrument of government after having been for sixteen years the party of opposition. He was taken away just when he could have rendered such great service to the country, the country which he loved so much though bad fortune had made him seem to be its evil genius.

THE MINGHETTI MINISTRY (1873-1876 A.D.)

The task of forming a new ministry was given by the king to Marco Minghetti who was leader of the opposition which was in the majority against the fallen ministry. The first note of the new ministry was a triumph of foreign policy. The visit of Victor Emmanuel to the emperors of Austria and Germany in their respective capitals in September, 1873, had placed a seal on the friendship of the two Transalpine powers.

[Sidenote: [1874-1877 A.D.]]

Successful as was the foreign policy of the government, it was counterbalanced by its unfortunate home policy. It will be forever a stain on its honour that on August 2nd, 1874, the minister Cantelli ordered the arrest and imprisonment of twenty-nine republicans who had assembled under the presidency of Aurelio Saffi in the Villa Ruffi to discuss the course to be adopted by their party with regard to questions interesting to the country and the line of conduct to be pursued in the event of a general election. However, the judicial authorities were perfectly just to the twenty-nine, and acquitting them all showed that if a police-ridden and licentious ministry was still possible in Italy, the era of partisan and corruptible magistracy was over. In 1874 the visits of the emperor of Austria to Venice and of the emperor of Germany to Milan helped to distract the attention of the country from the tumult which reigned in parliamentary parties and the revolution which they were preparing. The successor of Barbarossa came in October, 1874, to greet the king of Italy in the Lombardian metropolis and there to consecrate by his presence the elevation of the Italy which his predecessors had for so many centuries oppressed and martyrised. This splendid epilogue of the epic which had taken Italy from Novara to Rome was the fruit of the new civilisation which repeats by the will of the nation the judicial reason of its political existence; and this was primarily due to the miracle of a king in whom the glorious epic was personified.

But although the ministry had had its share in this marvellous event it had not succeeded in strengthening its existence, and already the members of the government, after having cradled themselves in rose-coloured hopes, on the eve of the reopening of parliament, in the autumn of 1875, felt the ground tremble beneath their feet. The opposition had become more audacious and more aggressive. It was the Right which had constituted the kingdom, after it had been set free by force of arms and made it really respected abroad and orderly and tranquil at home, as Minghetti said on the eve of giving up the government of it to the Left. Minghetti sent in his resignation which was accepted. The king intrusted to Depretis, the leader of the opposition, the task of forming a new cabinet. The Left, after having been the opposition for sixteen years, became the governing party.

DEATH OF VICTOR EMMANUEL AND PIUS IX

Less than two years had passed since the accession to power of the Left when Italy was stunned by a calamity as great as it was unexpected. At the end of 1877 the king went to Turin to pass Christmas. Going on a hunting expedition at the foot of the Alps he remained two days defying the cold of the season. On his return to Rome he felt very unwell, having shivering fits and nausea; but he paid no attention, thinking it was a passing indisposition. He took to his bed January 6th. Three days later Victor Emmanuel was no more.

At this time Pope Pius IX was also on his death-bed. Hearing that Victor Emmanuel was at the point of death he gave his consent to the Viatico being carried to him, though the Quirinal was a forbidden spot. And when he heard that he was dead he exclaimed that he had died as a Christian, a sovereign, and an honest man. A few days later he followed him to the tomb.

What a multitude of thoughts arise in the mind as we see these two tombs open almost contemporaneously, one to receive the remains of the last pope-king, and the other those of the first king of Italy. In these two men are personified one of the greatest epochs of history, an epoch fertile in the most glorious events which can take place in a nation. It is the epoch of a free state and a risen nation. And these two men were the artificers of the prodigious event--Pius IX by the religious impulse given to the Italian revolution in its first phases; Victor Emmanuel by having constituted himself the champion of independence of unity and of the liberty of Italy. From this moment the two men drifted apart. Pius IX resumed the life traced for him by papal tradition. Victor Emmanuel remained faithful to his mission and did his duty to the last day of his life. A grateful nation by the mouth of its representatives proclaimed him “The Father of his country.”[e]

FOOTNOTES

[36] [The bombardment lasted from 5:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M., the white flag being hoisted at 10:10. Reports of the losses vary greatly, Cadorna admitting 32 killed and 143 wounded on his side, though the estimates ranged as high as 2,000; but Beauffort[g] thinks this a manifest exaggeration. According to O’Clery[h] the pontifical troops lost 16 killed and 53 wounded.]

[37] [Few dates in modern European history equal in significance that of September 20th, 1870, when the Italian troops under General Cadorna took possession of Rome in the name of the Italian nation, and completed at one stroke both the work of the Risorgimento and the destruction of the temporal power of the Roman pontiff.[d]]

[38] [O’Clery,[h] however, calls the plebiscite a “disgraceful farce,” comparing it with that by which Napoleon III secured his vote. He points out that in Rome, where several thousands took arms for the pope, only 46 voted for him. Beauffort[g] says that one foreign sculptor voted 22 times without being challenged, and that whole bands went from urn to urn.]

[39] [“The dream of his life was accomplished, and in a manner most flattering to a monarch’s pride. Yet this rose was not without its thorn either. To be all sweetness he should have had Pio Nono’s blessing, and be crowned, like Charlemagne, by the hands of the venerable pontiff in that city of glorious memories where he was henceforth to reign. But he grasped the rose, thorn and all, with the memorable exclamation, ‘A Roma ci siamo e ci resteremo!’”--GODKIN.[i]]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXII. RECENT HISTORY

No sovereign ever mounted his throne amid greater tokens of good will on the part of the nation than did King Humbert I on the death of his father, whom he succeeded as quietly as if the Italian kingdom had existed for generations under the princes of the house of Savoy. It was a striking proof how completely that royal house had identified itself with the national cause, which had had no firmer supporter than Victor Emmanuel. His son was no less true to it. He commenced his reign on the 9th of January, 1878, and proved himself one of the best sovereigns who ever governed a free people. He faithfully adhered to those principles of constitutional liberty which have delivered Italy from despotism, revolution, and foreign occupation. He placed himself above party strife and took his place as chief of the nation, leaving to it the exercise of the rights secured by its free institutions. He devoted himself unsparingly to his royal duties, and sympathised by word and deed with the nation’s joys and sorrows. His whole conduct, as that of his queen and his son, justly won the hearts of his people.--PROBYN.[b]

[Sidenote: [1878-1903 A.D.]]

The entry of Francesco Crispi into the Depretis cabinet (December, 1877) had placed at the ministry of the interior a strong hand and sure eye at a moment when they were about to become imperatively necessary. Crispi was the only man of truly statesmanlike calibre in the ranks of the Left. Formerly a friend and disciple of Mazzini, with whom he had broken on the question of the monarchical form of government which Crispi believed indispensable to the unification of Italy, he had afterwards been one of Garibaldi’s most efficient coadjutors and an active member of the “party of action.” Passionate, not always scrupulous in his choice and use of political weapons, intensely patriotic, loyal with a loyalty based rather on reason than sentiment, quick-witted, prompt in action, determined and pertinacious, he possessed in eminent degree many qualities lacking in other liberal chieftains.[c]

Of Crispi, a less moderate opinion is given in the work of Bolton King and Thomas Okey[d]:

“Crispi was a much abler man than Depretis. He had, at all events, grandiose politics, a considerable capacity of leading men, a force and an insistence that fascinated Italy, and for a time made him more worshipped and more hated than any Italian statesman of this generation. He was as unscrupulous as Depretis in his methods, and he had a hardy inconsistency that came not so much from any deliberate dishonesty as from an impulsiveness that made him the slave to the passion of the moment, quite forgetful of the promises and the policy of yesterday.

“At one moment he paraded his friendliness to France, a month or two later he was irritating her by hot and foolish speeches. Now he posed as an anti-clerical and free-thinker; now he spoke as one who longed for reconciliation with the Vatican. In 1886 he said that the ‘workman must be freed from the slavery of capital’; in 1894 he charged socialism with ‘raising the right of spoliation to a science.’ The wildest fancies, madcap adventures, anything that was showy and dazzling stood for statesmanship.

“In 1894 he believed, on the vaguest of forged evidence, that the Sicilian socialists were plotting to surrender the island to France. When the Russian exiles crowded into Italy after the assassination of Alexander II, Crispi, then an ex-minister and over sixty years old, preached a crusade of civilised nations against Russia. He was a savage, passionate fighter, who stuck at no severity, however unjust or unconstitutional, towards a political opponent, and whose intolerance grew till the ex-democrat became essentially a despot.”[d]

Hardly had Crispi assumed office when the unexpected death of Victor Emmanuel II, as previously described, stirred national feeling to an unprecedented depth, and placed the continuity of monarchical institutions in Italy upon trial before Europe. For thirty years Victor Emmanuel had been the central point of national hopes, the token and embodiment of the struggle for national redemption. He had led the country out of the despondency which followed the defeat of Novara and the abdication of Charles Albert, through all the vicissitudes of national unification to the final triumph at Rome. His disappearance snapped the chief link with the heroic period and removed from the helm of state a ruler of large heart, great experience, and civil courage, at a moment when elements of continuity were needed and vital problems of internal reorganisation had still to be faced.

Crispi adopted the measures necessary to insure the tranquil accession of King Humbert with a quick energy which precluded any radical or republican demonstrations. His influence decided the choice of the Roman Pantheon as the late monarch’s burial-place, in spite of formidable pressure from the Piedmontese, who wished Victor Emmanuel II to rest with the Sardinian kings at Superga. He also persuaded the new ruler to inaugurate, as King Humbert I, the new dynastical epoch of the kings of Italy, instead of continuing as Humbert IV the succession of the kings of Sardinia.

Before the commotion caused by the death of Victor Emmanuel had passed away, the decease of Pius IX, February 7th, 1878, had, as we have seen, placed further demands upon Crispi’s sagacity and promptitude. Like Victor Emmanuel, Pius IX had been bound up with the history of the Risorgimento, but, unlike him, had represented and embodied the anti-national, reactionary spirit. Having once let slip the opportunity which presented itself in 1846-1848, of placing the papacy at the head of the unitary movement, he had seen himself driven from Rome, despoiled piecemeal of papal territory, reduced to an attitude of perpetual protest, and finally confined, voluntarily, but still confined, within the walls of the Vatican. Ecclesiastically, he had become the instrument of the triumph of Jesuit influence, and had in turn set his seal upon the dogma of the immaculate conception, the syllabus, and papal infallibility. Yet, in spite of all, his jovial disposition and good-humoured cynicism saved him from unpopularity, and rendered his death an occasion of mourning. Notwithstanding the pontiff’s bestowal of the apostolic benediction in articulo mortis upon Victor Emmanuel, the attitude of the Vatican had remained so inimical as to make it doubtful whether the conclave would be held in Rome.

Crispi, whose strong anti-clerical convictions did not prevent him from regarding the papacy as pre-eminently an Italian institution, was determined both to prove to the Catholic world the practical independence of the government of the church and to retain for Rome so potent a centre of universal attraction as the presence of the future pope. The sacred college of cardinals having decided to hold the conclave abroad, Crispi assured them of absolute freedom if they remained in Rome, or of protection to the frontier, should they migrate; but warned them that, once evacuated, the Vatican would be occupied in the name of the Italian government and be lost to the church as headquarters of the papacy.

The cardinals thereupon overruled their former decision, and the conclave was held in Rome, the new pope, Cardinal Pecci, being elected on the 20th of February, 1878, without let or hindrance. The Italian government not only prorogued the chamber during the conclave to prevent unseemly inquiries or demonstrations on the part of deputies, but by means of Mancini, minister of justice and Cardinal di Pietro, assured the new pope protection during the settlement of his outstanding personal affairs, an assurance of which Leo XIII, on the evening after his election, took full advantage. At the same time the duke of Aosta, commander of the Rome army corps, ordered the troops to render royal honours to the pontiff should he officially appear in the capital.

King Humbert addressed to the pope a letter of congratulation upon his election, and received a courteous reply. The improvement thus signalised in the relations between Quirinal and Vatican was further exemplified on the 18th of October, 1878, when the Italian government accepted a papal formula with regard to the granting of the royal exequatur for bishops, whereby they, upon nomination by the holy see, recognised state control over, and made application for, the payment of their temporalities.[c]

IRREDENTISM, THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE AND “TRASFORMISMO”

The partnership of Depretis and Crispi in the cabinet had a short life. Crispi was attacked as a bigamist, and while the courts declared his earlier marriage in 1853 null and void and ratified his later marriage, the popular outcry compelled his resignation. The election of the leader of the Left, Cairoli, who was an enemy of Depretis and who defeated him on a taxation question, led Depretis to resign. Cairoli formed a new cabinet with Count Corti in charge of foreign affairs. He represented Italy at the congress of Berlin in 1878, where he witnessed Austrian triumphs over Italian policy. This caused a fall in his popularity and the activity of revolutionary bodies called irredentists, from their desire for the “redemption” of Trent and Trieste from Austria, provoked an agitation which led Corti to resign in October. In November a wretch named Passanante attempted to assassinate the king at Naples. The king defended himself with his sabre, but there was an outburst of public indignation against the ministry in spite of the fact that Cairoli had bravely thrown himself in front of his sovereign and received a serious dagger-wound.

Cairoli resigned and Depretis came back into power, only to yield again to Cairoli in July, 1879. Cairoli’s foreign policy was again so weak as to merit the epigram of Bonghi,[e] that it was “marked by enormous mental impotence balanced by equal moral weakness.” In November Cairoli was compelled to call Depretis to his aid in the face of a financial crisis, which was made the more dangerous by Depretis’ plan for spending over forty million pounds on the building of railways.

It was a railway which brought about a misunderstanding with France, and gave Italy another humiliation in her foreign affairs. Italian influence in Tunis was threatened by French aggression, and a railway built there by an English company was the subject of a rivalry between the two countries. The English courts prevented the French from buying it, whereupon the Italians secured it at a price estimated at eight times its value. The next year, 1881, the French, after some difficulties with a Tunisian tribe, seized Tabarca and Biserta, compelling the bey of Tunis, who had protested in vain to the powers, to accept a French protectory. This caused great excitement in Italy, and Cairoli was forced to resign by a vote of want of confidence.

On account of the dissensions in the party of the Left the king appealed to the leader of the Right, Sella, but the Left reunited against this loss of power and Depretis became minister, suffering a new humiliation in the massacre of Italian workmen at Marseilles on the return of French soldiers from Tunis. Riots in Rome during a procession carrying the remains of Pius IX from St. Peter’s to San Lorenzo showed further governmental feebleness.

A new problem now agitated the politics of Italy. There was an opportunity to strengthen Italy’s position in the eyes of Europe by entering a triple alliance with Germany and Austria. The Right strongly favoured this, but the Centre wished to keep on good terms especially with France, while Crispi and others in the Left leaned towards Austria. The irredentist agitation and a fear that Austria might throw her influence in favour of the papacy decided the matter in favour of the triple alliance. The visit to Austria of King Humbert and his queen Margherita furthered the matter. The opposition of Depretis was finally overcome and the offensive and defensive treaty of the triple alliance was signed May 20th, 1882. The treaty was, however, kept a secret until March, 1883. But the position of Italy in the alliance was not one of much honour, and while it minimised the chances of a restoration of the papal power, it brought Italy into some danger from France. On March 17th, 1887, the alliance was renewed on better terms for Italy.

In the meanwhile, in 1881, the suffrage had, by lowering the tax qualifications, been enlarged from 600,000 to 2,000,000; at the same time it had been extended to practically every man able to read and write. The state ownership and building of railways, whose income was far less than estimated, together with the forced currency and the expenditures on public works and various financial experiments, as well as a tendency to vote public works in return for local support, have kept Italian finances in a critical condition, though, in general, the industrial affairs of Italy have shown a steady improvement and sanitary legislation has received attention. The increase of the army and of the navy has also been marked, the new army bill of 1882 having given great satisfaction to Garibaldi just before his death at Caprera, June 2nd, 1882.

The long tenure of power by the Left had at the same time caused dissensions in its ranks and frequent compromises with factions of the Right, causing a gradual partisan “transformation,” called the trasformismo,--it was really another name for chaos. This state of affairs is generally blamed to Depretis who, in his four recompositions of his cabinet between 1881 and his death, July 29th, 1887, had made many alliances with the Right. It is customary to heap upon his memory the blame for a large part of the financial and political distresses of the country. He had a large influence also in the none too fortunate colonial policy of Italy.

In 1884, in return for lending support to the British policy in regard to Egypt, Italians were encouraged to seize Beilul and Massawa. England also invited Italy to join her in pacifying the Soudan, an invitation the more cordially accepted from the massacre in Assab of an exploring party under the Italian royal commissioner. In January, 1885, an Italian expedition occupied Beilul and Massawa and began to extend the zone of occupation. This aroused the negus of Abyssinia and Alula, the ras of Tigré who attacked the Italian exploring parties. The Abyssinians massacred a force of five hundred officers and men and mutilated the dead at Dogali, January 26th, 1887. All Italy was horrified at this atrocity and Crispi, having been called to Depretis’ cabinet, threw his influence to the vindication of the country’s dignity. The negus of Abyssinia, though he had 100,000 men against Italy’s 20,000, opened negotiations for peace and turned against the Mahdists by whom he was defeated and killed March 10th, 1889. A war of succession arose in which an ancient enemy of the negus, Menelek, king of Shoa, signed the treaty of Ucciali, which the Italians construed as a protectorate.

But King Menelek, having received the submission of his rival Mangashá, became more independent in his tone towards the Italians. After an Italian expedition under General Baratieri had achieved great success in Eritrea over the Mahdists, Menelek, in 1893, repudiated the Treaty of Ucciali. His coalition with Mangashá, in which he was easily defeated in January, 1895, led Baratieri to push on to Adowa and even to Axum, the holy city of Abyssinia. In December, however, the Abyssinians arose and the Italian forces suffered several defeats, ending in the great disaster of Adowa March 1st, 1896, where the Italians lost 6,000 men and nearly 4,000 prisoners. Baratieri fled precipitately, leaving his troops to follow; but General Baldissera, who had been previously sent to replace Baratieri, succeeded in making terms with Menelek and securing the release of the prisoners.

THE POWER OF CRISPI

Shortly after the death of Depretis, Crispi, now sixty-eight years old, came into power and assumed that predominance which he held for so many years. Efforts at conciliation with the Vatican, where the pope called himself a prisoner, had no success. Crispi was strongly in favour of the Triple Alliance and did little to conciliate French feeling. He had much support from the Right until, in 1891, he lost his temper during a speech and rebuked them for their interruptions. Such feeling was raised against him that he resigned and was succeeded by the marquis de Rudini, the leader of the Right. Crispi had been accused of “megalomania,” but he had, by cultivating the friendship of Bismarck and paying him a visit, so strengthened Italy’s position that the Rudini cabinet seemed weak by comparison and fell in 1892, being succeeded by Giolitti, whose administration ushered in “what proved to be the most unfortunate period of Italian history since the completion of national unity.” Bank scandals and other revelations of corruption brought about the fall of the cabinet, weakened by its attitude towards an insurrection due to popular discontent in Sicily.

The strong hand of Crispi put an end to the riots upon his return in December, 1893, to the ministry, and heroic efforts were made by his minister of finance, Sonnino, whose measures were so severe, however, that Crispi became the victim of an unusually violent war of defamation, in which his political and private life was exposed to all imaginable accusation, just or otherwise. An attack was made upon his life by an anarchist and a few months later a mass of stolen documents were brought before the chamber by Giolitti, who endeavoured to prosecute Crispi but was compelled by a counter-suit to flee to Berlin. The radical leader Cavalotti made another attempt to prove Crispi guilty of embezzlement. The effort failed, though public respect for the condition of politics suffered a great diminution. Crispi had gained a great majority at the election of 1895, but fell before the disaster at Adowa in 1896.

His successor Rudini gave assistance to Cavalotti’s effort to disgrace Crispi, but without success, as has been said, and after a persecution of two years a parliamentary commission vindicated Crispi of dishonesty, though finding him guilty of irregularity. Public discontent brought about, in May, 1898, riots in the south of Italy. These were put down with an inexcusable severity especially at Milan where the repression amounted almost to a massacre. The month before Crispi, who had resigned his seat in parliament, had been returned by an enormous majority from Palermo. In June the Rudini ministry fell and Luigi Pelloux, a general of Savoy, succeeded, but he resigned after a defeat at the polls in June, 1900, and was followed by a moderate liberal cabinet under Saracco.

DEATH OF KING HUMBERT, OF CRISPI, AND OF LEO XIII

Shortly after, July 29th, 1900, an anarchist named Bresci assassinated King Humbert while he was returning from the distribution of prizes at an athletic carnival at Monza. King Humbert was a monarch whose personal magnetism and courage and whose tenderness to his people had atoned for his lack of great political distinction. During the flood of 1882, and after the earthquake of 1883, and during the cholera epidemic of 1884, he had risked his own life to aid the sufferers. He governed in strict accord with the constitution. His death brought genuine public grief, for his generosity had won him the name “Humbert the Good.”

The prince of Naples, his only son, succeeded the king, and took the title Victor Emmanuel III. He was born on November 11th, 1869, and had married the princess Helena of Montenegro in October, 1896. A daughter, the Princess Yolanda-Margherita of Savoy, was born to them June 1st, 1901.

On the 12th of August, 1901, Crispi died, leaving behind him a reputation for forcefulness of character and for intense national feeling, though there are many acts which his most fervent admirers deeply regret.

The Saracco cabinet had fallen in February, 1901, and was succeeded by the ministry of Zanardelli who recalled Giolitti, giving him the portfolio of the interior. The ministry was noteworthy for its somewhat socialistic spirit which tacitly encouraged great labour agitations; there were 600 strikes during the first six months of 1901. The general result was some amelioration of the condition of the labouring classes and the increase of the socialist strength. Italian finances have also been somewhat improved.

Pope Leo XIII died after a long illness, July 20th, 1903. While keeping to the policy of his predecessor in his attitude towards the Italian government he had brought the Catholic church to a far higher position of esteem in the eyes of all nations, even of those predominantly Protestant. His successor, Cardinal Sarto, the patriarch of Venice, took the name of Pius X and seems to be inclined to a policy of friendship towards the Italian government, a policy which the king seems eager to foster. In recent years Italian literature and science have been making large progress in cosmopolitan favour, and Italy seems destined to a re-illumination of her ancient splendours.[a]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. THE DARK AGE

[b] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, The History of the Italian Republics.

[c] FRANCESCO BERTOLINI, Storia delle Dominazioni in Italia (in Villari’s Storia Politica d’Italia).

[d] PIERRE ANTOINE DARU, Histoire de la République de Venise.

[e] HENRY EDWARD NAPIER, Florentine History.

[f] GIOVANNI BATISTA TESTA, History of the War of Frederic I against the Communes of Lombardy.

[g] ANDREA DANDOLO, Chronicon Venetum.

[h] GIOVANNI DIACONO, Chronicon.

[i] HEINRICH LEO, Entwicklung der Verfassung der Lombardischen Städte.

[k] W. C. HAZLITT, History of the Venetian Republic.

[l] PASQUALE VILLANI, the article “Pisa” in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[m] KARL HILLEBRAND, Dino Campagni: Étude Historique et Littéraire sur l’Époque de Dante.

[n] MALASPINA RICORDANO, Istoria fiorentina, in Muratori’s “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores,” vol. VIII.

[o] E. PROCTOR, The History of Italy.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. IMPERIAL AGGRESSIONS OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY

[b] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[c] J. C. L. SISMONDI, op. cit.

[d] G. B. TESTA, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. THE NORMANS IN SICILY

[b] GOFREDUS MALATERRA, Rerum Roberti Guiscardi et Rogerii fratris ejus.

[c] E. A. FREEMAN, articles on “Normans” and “Sicily” in the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[d] HENRY HALLAM, The State of Europe during the Middle Ages.

[e] FLODOARD, Annales.

[f] ADHÉMAR DE CHABANNES, Chronicon.

[g] G. B. DEPPING, Histoire des Expéditions maritimes des Normands.

[h] ST. MARC, Histoire de l’Italie.

[i] S. ASTLEY DUNHAM, Europe in the Middle Ages.

[j] GUGLIELMUS APULIENSIS, Rerum in Apulia, Campania, Calabria et Sicilia libri.

[k] ANNA COMNENA, Alexias.

[l] E. GIBBON, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

[m] HUGO FALCANDUS, Historia Sicula, in Muratori’s “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores,” vol. VII.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

[b] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[c] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[d] LORENZO PIGNOTTI, The History of Tuscany.

[e] MALASPINA, op. cit.

[f] N. MACCHIAVELLI, History of Florence.

[g] G. B. TESTA, op. cit.

[h] B. DUFFY, Tuscan Republics.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. THE FREE CITIES AND THE EMPIRE (First Half of the Fourteenth Century)

[b] P. A. DARU, op. cit.

[c] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[d] GIOVANNI VILLANI, Florentine History.

[e] L. PIGNOTTI, op. cit.

[f] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[g] N. TEGRIMUS, Vita Castruccio.

[h] MALASPINA, op. cit.

[i] N. MACCHIAVELLI, op. cit.

[j] BOCCACCIO, Decameron.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VI. THE VANGUARD OF THE RENAISSANCE

[b] J. A. SYMONDS, The Renaissance in Italy.

[c] J. BURCKHARDT, The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy.

[d] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[e] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, The Literature of Southern Europe.

[f] GIOVANNI VILLANI, op. cit.

[g] KARL HILLEBRAND, op. cit.

[h] S. ASTLEY DUNHAM, op. cit.

[i] E. MÜNTZ, Les Précurseurs de la Renaissance.

[j] WM. SPALDING, Italy and the Italian Islands.

[k] JOHN RUSKIN, The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

[l] GIOVANNI PONTANO, De Fortitudine.

[m] HUGO FALCANDUS, op. cit.

[n] GEBHARDT, Origines de la Renaissance en Italie.

[o] DANTE, Divina Commedia.

[p] P. L. GINGUENÉ, L’histoire littéraire de l’Italie.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VII. ROME UNDER RIENZI

[b] GIOVANNI VILLANI, op. cit.

[c] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, History of the Italian Republics.

[d] CARLO CIPOLLA, Storia delle Signorie Italiani.

[e] E. G. BULWER-LYTTON, Rienzi, Last of the Tribunes.

[f] MATTEO VILLANI, Florentine History.

[g] EDWARD GIBBON, op. cit.

[i] PETRARCH, Letter to the Roman People (from Robinson and Rolfe’s Petrarch, the first Modern Scholar and Man of Letters).

[k] MURATORI, Italian Antiquities.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VIII. THE DESPOTS AND TYRANTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES

[b] W. SPALDING, op. cit.

[c] ROBERT COMYN, History of the Western Empire.

[d] H. HALLAM, op. cit.

[e] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[f] ISAAC BUTT, The History of Italy from the Abdication of Napoleon.

[g] J. BURCKHARDT, op. cit.

[h] S. A. DUNHAM, op. cit.

[i] E. PROCTOR, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IX. THE MARITIME REPUBLICS OF THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES

[b] S. A. DUNHAM, op. cit.

[c] CAFFARO, Annales Genuenses.

[d] JACOBUS DE VARAGINE, Chronicon Genuense.

[e] OBERTUS CANCELLARIUS, Annales Genuenses.

[f] GIOVANNI VILLANI, op. cit.

[g] ROBERT COMYN, op. cit.

[h] G. STELLA, Annales Genuenses, in seventeenth volume of Muratori’s collection.

[i] VETTOR SANDI, Storia civile Veneta.

[j] H. HALLAM, op. cit.

[k] W. C. HAZLITT, op. cit.

[l] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[m] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[o] L. PIGNOTTI, op. cit.

[p] E. PROCTOR, op. cit.

[q] OTTOBONUS SCRIBA, Annales Genuenses.

[r] MARCHIRIUS ET BARTHOLOMÆUS SCRIBÆ, Annales Genuenses.

[s] UBERTUS FOLIETA, Annales Genuenses.

[t] GATARO, Istoria Padavana, in Muratori’s collection.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

X. THE COMMERCE OF VENICE

[b] J. BURCKHARDT, op. cit.

[c] G. VILLANI, op. cit.

[d] SANUTO, Vile di Duchi di Venezia, in “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

[e] W. C. HAZLITT, op. cit.

[f] H. HALLAM, op. cit.

[g] P. A. DARU, op. cit.

[h] W. HEYD, Histoire du commerce du Levant.

[i] J. LABARTE, Arts of the Middle Ages.

[k] SABELLICUS (MARCUS ANTONIUS COCCIUS), History of the Republic of Venice.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XI. THE GUILDS AND THE SEIGNIORY IN FLORENCE

[b] F. T. PERRENS, Histoire de Florence.

[c] MATTEO VILLANI, op. cit.

[d] GINO CAPPONI, Storia della republica di Firenze.

[e] N. MACCHIAVELLI, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XII. FLORENCE UNDER THE MEDICI

[b] HEINRICH LEO, Geschichte der italienischen Staaten.

[c] ALFRED VON REUMONT, Lorenzo de’ Medici il magnifico.

[d] WILLIAM ROSCOE, The Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici.

[e] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[f] F. M. A. VOLTAIRE, Essai sur les Mœurs et l’esprit des nations.

[g] GIORGIO VASARI, Le Vite dei pittore, scultori e architetti.

[h] TRAVERSARI, Lat. Ep.

[i] POGGIO BRACCIOLINI, Opera.

[j] FLAVIUS BLONDUS, Italia Illustrata.

[k] ANGELO MARIA BANDINI, Letters sopra i principi e progressi della Biblioteca Laurenziani.

[l] FICINO, Marsilio Ficino Epist.

[m] AMMIRATO, Istorie Florentine.

[n] GIOVANNI CAMBI, Del. Erud. Tos.

[o] TRIBALDO DE ROSSI, Ricordanze di Tribaldo de Rossi, Del. degli Erud. Toscan.

[p] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[q] GUICCIARDINI, F., History of Italy from the Year 1490 to 1532.

[r] N. MACCHIAVELLI, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XIII. ASPECTS OF RENAISSANCE CULTURE

[b] J. A. SYMONDS, op. cit.

[c] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, Literature of Southern Europe.

[d] G. VASARI, op. cit.

[e] PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON, The Intellectual Life.

[f] H. HALLAM, op. cit.

[g] WORKS OF LEONARDO DA VINCI.

[h] W. SPALDING, op. cit.

[i] HERMAN GRIMM, Life of Michael Angelo.

[j] WM. ROSCOE, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XIV. THE “LAST DAY OF ITALY”

[b] F. GUICCIARDINI, op. cit.

[c] BENVENUTO CELLINI, The Life of Benvenuto Cellini.

[d] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[e] H. E. NAPIER, op. cit.

[f] JOHN BURCHARD (or BUCARDUS), Diary of John Burchard (in Cimber’s “Archives Curieuses de l’Histoire de France”).

[g] W. H. PRESCOTT, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.

[h] F. A. MIGNET, Rivalité de François I et de Charles V.

[i] E. QUINET, Les Révolutions d’Italie.

[j] MÉMOIRES DE BAYARD.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XV. THE BEGINNING OF THE AGE OF SLAVERY

[b] J. A. SYMONDS, article “Italy” in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[c] E. PROCTOR, op. cit.

[d] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, op. cit.

[e] W. ROBERTSON, The History of the Reign of Charles V.

[f] CARLO DENINA, Delle Rivoluzioni d’Italia.

[h] CALLEGARE, “Preponderanze straniere” in Storia politica d’Italia scritta da una Società di Professori.

[i] JULES ZELLER, Histoire de l’Italie.

[j] M. LAFUENTE, Historia General de España.

[k] J. C. L. S. DE SISMONDI, Literature of Southern Europe.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVI. A CENTURY OF OBSCURITY

[b] WM. HUNT, History of Italy.

[c] E. PROCTOR, op. cit.

[d] ANTONIO COSCI, L’Italia durant le Preponderanza Straniere (in Villari’s work).

[e] H. B. BRIGGS, article “Savoy” in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[f] WILLIAM WHEWELL, History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest to the Present Time.

[g] GALILEO, Dialogo delli due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico e Copernicano.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVII. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

[b] ALFRED VON REUMONT, Geschichte Toscanas seit dem Ende des Florentinischen Freistaats.

[c] HEINRICH LEO, op. cit.

[d] GIOVANNI DE CASTRO, Patria.

[e] E. PROCTOR, op. cit.

[f] W. SPALDING, op. cit.

[g] GIUSEPPE MONTANELLI, Mémoires sur l’Italie.

[h] JULES ZELLER, op. cit.

[i] CARLO BOTTA, History of Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon Buonaparte.

[j] J. REINACH, La France, et l’Italie devant l’histoire.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVIII. THE NAPOLEONIC RÉGIME (1800-1815 A.D.)

[b] CARLO BOTTA, op. cit.

[c] CARLO DENINA, Storia dell’Italia Occidentale.

[d] WILLIAM SPALDING, op. cit.

[e] CESARE BALBO, Sommario della storia d’Italia.

[f] HERMANN REUCHLIN, Geschichte Italiens.

[g] GIOVANNI DE CASTRO, Storia d’Italia, 1799-1814.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XIX. INEFFECTUAL STRUGGLES (1815-1847 A.D.)

[b] ISAAC BUTT, op. cit.

[c] HEINRICH LEO, Geschichte der italienischen Staaten.

[d] W. SPALDING, op. cit.

[e] J. A. R. MARRIOT, The Makers of Modern Italy.

[f] R. H. WRIGHTSON, A History of Modern Italy.

[g] J. A. SYMONDS, op. cit.

[h] COUNTESS MARTINENGO CESARESCO, The Liberation of Italy.

[i] GUALTERIO, Rivolgimenti Italiani.

[j] F. SASSONE, France et l’Italie.

[k] C. A. FYFFE, A History of Modern Europe.

[l] JULES ZELLER, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XX. THE LIBERATION OF ITALY (1848-1866 A.D.)

[b] COUNTESS MARTINENGO CESARESCO, op. cit.

[c] FRANCESCO BERTOLINI, Etona d’Italia.

[d] C. BULLE, Geschichte des Königreiches Italiens.

[e] TAXILE DELORD, Histoire du Second Empire.

[f] FELIX HENNEGUY, Histoire de l’Italie.

[g] GEORG WEBER, Allgemeine Weltgeschichte.

[h] H. REUCHLIN, op. cit.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXI. THE COMPLETION OF ITALIAN UNITY (1867-1878 A.D.)

[b] W. R. THAYER, op. cit.

[c] MARIE RATTAZZI, Bonaparte Rattazzi et son temps, documentis ineditis.

[d] H. WICKHAM STEAD, “History of Italy,” in the New Volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

[e] F. BERTOLINI, op. cit.

[f] JULES ZELLER, Pie IX et Victor Emanuel, 1846-1878.

[g] COMTE DE BEAUFORT, Histoire de l’invasion des états pontificaux.

[h] THE O’CLERY, The Making of Italy.

[i] G. S. GODKIN, Life of Victor Emmanuel II, First King of Italy.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us