Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:42:58.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Vatican, France and the Roman Question, 1898–1903: New Archival Evidence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Maurice Larkin
Maurice Larkin
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The benevolence of Leo XIII towards France has puzzled historians, just as it exasperated many contemporaries – especially during the anticlerical high tide of the Dreyfus crisis. The opening of the Vatican archives for Leo's reign (1878–1903) has put investigation of the issue on a much firmer footing, as have the latest releases of documents at the Jesuit archives in Rome. This article indicates some of the ways in which thisnew material enlarges and qualifies the impressions given by older sources – notably the valuable holdings of the Assumptionist archives in Rome and the more familiar contents of the various governmental archives in France, Italy and elsewhere.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 177 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The importance of the Roman question as a factor behind the Ralliement is acknowledged notably by de Montclos, Xavier, Le toast d' Alger: documents 1890–1891 (Paris, 1966), p. 29Google Scholar.

2 ‘Loubet's visit [to Rome and the question of papal prestige]’, Historical Journal, IV (1961), 98–9Google Scholar; Church and state [after the Dreyfus affair: the separation issue in France] (London, 1974), pp. 33–46Google Scholar.

3 6 Nov. 1901 (wrongly dated ‘1900’), N. 941, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, cited hereafter as ‘A. S. Vat.’, S. Stato 1901, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 1. After the Italian occupation of Rome in 1870, the Law of Guarantees of 13 May 1871 offered the pope sovereignty of his person but only the extra-territoriality of those of his former possessions left to him – the palaces of the Vatican and the Lateran, and the summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. Since the Law was a purely internal matter with no international or even national guarantee against repeal, it left the pope's status at the mercy of the changing majorities of the Italian parliament.

4 Reported in d'Aubigny to Delcassé, 30 Jan. 1902, N. 17, Archives du Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres, ‘Saint Siége – relations avec l'ltalie’, 11, 211–13, cited hereafter as ‘MAE, SS/Ital.’.

6 See notably Ward, James E., ‘Leo XIII and Bismarck: the Kaiser's visit of 1888’, Review of Politics XXIV (1962), 392–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Examples and evidence in Larkin, Church and state, PP. 404.

7 Seton-Watson, Christopher, Italy from liberalism to fascism 1870–1925 (London, 1967), p. 181Google Scholar.

8 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 10 Nov. 1899, N. 95, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1899, Rubr. 248, Fasc. a.

9 Navenne to Delcassé, 19 Aug. 1898, N. 122, MAE SS/Ital., 1, 98–9.

10 Poubelle to Hanotaux, 18 Jan. 1898, N. 9, and Navenne to Hanotaux, 30 May 1898, N.83, MAE SS/Ital. 1, 23–31 and 64.

11 See Larkin, Church and State, p. 45, for the Vatican's bitter reaction and its fears that the treaty would worsen its chances of recovering Rome.

12 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 6 Oct. 1899, N. 87, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1899, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 2.

13 9 Nov. 1899, N. 94, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1901, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 1. (Documents in the A. S. Vat. are frequently bound thematically with documents of a different year.)

14 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 10 Nov. 1899, N. 95, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1899, Rubr. 248, Fasc.2.

15 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 27 Feb. 1901, N. 644, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc.6.

16 The issue is discussed in Larkin, ‘Loubet's visit’, pp. 97–103, and Church and state, pp. 38–9, 130–3.

17 Rampolla warned the nuncio in Madrid that a Spanish royal visit to Rome would have serious consequences, 12 Jan. 1902, N. 67503, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 10.

18 L'Unité catholique et le pouvoir temporel du Saint-Siége (Paris, 1902). The principal part of it had been given by Lorenzelli as a lecture at Soissons seminary on 4 Feb. 1902.

19 Rampolla to Lorenzelli, 4 Sep. 1902, A. S. Vat., [Parigi] Nunz[iatura] Lor[enzelli], Busta 3. (Unlike the S. Stato copies – which are in bound volumes – the nunciature copies are loose in boxes.)

20 It appears in the Cours de philosophic positive (Paris, 1830–1842), which Lorenzelli, Google Scholar cites in his brochure.

21 The first major discussion is described in Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 2 Apr. 1902, N. 1154, A. S. Vat., Nunz. Lor., Busta 3.

22 Described in Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 23 Apr. 1902, N. 1190, A. S. Vat., Nunz. Lor., Busta 3.

23 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 9 May 1902, N. 1214, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 10; and Nunz. Lor., Busta 3.

24 Théophile Delcassé and the making of the Entente Cordiale: a reappraisal of French foreign policy 1898–1905 (London, 1968), p. 87Google Scholar.

25 Ibid. pp. 189–90.

26 Ibid. pp. 150–1, 191–2.

27 Ibid. p. 190.

28 See note 21.

29 Painter, George, Marcel Proust: a biography (London, 1959), 1, 283–4Google Scholar. The Vatican later implied that Nisard's deafness was an indirect ancillary factor in the Franco-papal crisis that led to his withdrawal in May 1904. Le Lime blanc du Saint-Siége (Paris, 1906), pp. 55–61, 139–43Google Scholar.

30 Nisard to Delcassé, 18 Jan. 1902, N. 13, MAE SS/Fr[ance] V.

31 Nisard to Delcassé, 9 Nov. 1902, N. 198, MAE SS/Fr. V.

32 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 10 Sep. 1902, N. 1418, and 29 Oct. 1902, N. 1478, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1903, Rubr. 248. See also his earlier dispatch, 15 May 1901, N. 733, S. Stato 1901, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 1.

33 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 10 Sep. 1902, N. 1418, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1903, Rubr. 248.

34 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 25 Jun. 1902, N. 1289, A. S. Vat., Nunz. Lor., Busta 8.

35 Indeed, as was later to be shown in the Vatican's handling of the disestablishment issue in 1905–6, it was quite prepared to abandon property worth ten times the annual value of the state salaries, in order to assert its principles on what it saw as the prime importance of the Concordat. Larkin, Church and state, pp. 170–206.

36 These considerations still carry weight today, as exemplified in the recent controversy over whether the British Legation to the Holy See should be made an embassy. The Times leader of i8Jan. 1982, ‘The Papacy today’, began, ‘An embassy in the Vatican…has long been delayed, out of fear…of flattering whatever temporal pretensions may be thought to linger in the papacy. There has also been an argument that top-rank diplomatic representation should only be made to and from a substantial territorial sovereignty.’ The assumption that embassies were confined to ‘ substantial territorial sovereignties’ was a major reason for their attractiveness to the papacy at the turn of the century.

37 See notably M. G. Labrosse, head of the Paris province, to the Assistant General of the Jesuits, 29 Dec. 1900, and B. de Scorraille, head of the Toulouse province, to the General, 17 Dec. 1902, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. iv, 19 and 57. The bitterest comments came from the Assumptionists. See Larkin, Church and State, p. 89.

38 Larkin, Church and State, pp. 64–89. Their antisemitism is the subject of Sorlin, Pierre, ‘La Croix’ et lesjuifs (1880–1899) (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar.

39 Vincen Bailly to Emmanuel Bailly, 26 Feb. 1899, Assumpt. Rom., Bailly TS, xii, N. 3301. This episode and its aftermath is described in Larkin, Church and state, pp. 76–9.

40 Leo asked Vincent Bailly point blank whether the Jesuits had been giving money to the extreme Right to which Bailly replied tht he did not know but thought it unlikely. Vincent Bailly to Picard, 25 Sep. 1899, Assumpt. Rom., Bailly TS, xn, N. 3285.

41 The regular reports by the heads of the four French provinces, describing conditions in each of the Jesuit houses under their jurisdiction, are frank and meticulous; and, given the rigour of the criticism they include, would almost certainly have spoken of activity of the type suspected by the pope. Those for the western province in 1896 and 1898 speak of ‘the strong repugnance’ of several members for Leo's Ralliement policies, but the 1898 report also mentions members who carry the Ralliement spirit to the point of denigrating the past achievements of monarchical France. Platel to General, 25 Oct. 1896 and 7 May 1898, Jes. Rom., Franc. 16, fo. 11, 67 and 96.

42 J. Ehrmann to General, 6 Oct. 1896, Jes. Rom., Franc. 16, fo. in, 2.

43 Matignon to General, 6 Oct. 1896, Jes. Rom., Franc. 16, fo. m, 2a.

44 ‘Jesuits hit by Dreyfus Affair: the alleged machinations of the disciples of Loyola in the Great French Scandal’, undated cutting (probably 16 or 17 08 1899) in Jes. Rom., Franc. 16, fo. IIIGoogle Scholar.

45 A[rchives] N[ationales], 300 AP m, 804–6.

46 Notes of de Charette, Gen., 03 1897, A.N., 300 in, 803Google Scholar.

47 The rumours surrounding du Lac are surveyed in Caperan, Loui, L' anticlericalisme et l' affairt Dreyfus, 1897–1899) (Toulouse, 1948), pp. 263–76Google Scholar, and in a more hostile fashion by Reinach, Josep, Histoire de raffaire Dreyfus (7 vols., Paris, 1901–1908), especially v, 145–9, 227–9Google Scholar. Du Lac denied knowing Pellieux. Reinach, v, 147.

48 Platel to General, 22 Jan. 1899, Jes. Rom., Franc. 16, fo. 11, 108.

49 Undated (probably early 1901, or late 1900), Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. iv, 38.

50 Richard to Card. Vincenzo Vannutelli, 15 Jan. 1900, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 7.

51 Du Lac to General, 24 Jan. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 6.

52 Labrosse to Assistant General, 27 Dec. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 17. Bettembourg's complaints to Rampolla in 1900 are summarized in an undated, unsigned document, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 21.

53 The phrase occurs in Labrosse to Assistant General, 29 Dec. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 19.

54 See note 52. For similar accusations, see du Lac to General, 28 Dec. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 18.

55 8 Apr. 1900, N. 264, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 7. Lorenzelli also accused the Assumptionist Procurator-General, Emmanuel Bailly, of trying to persuade a distinguished visitor to Rome to tell ‘a pack of lies’, eulogizing the order's activities to the pope and Rampolla. Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 6 May 1900, N. 285, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 7. For Lorenzelli's hardest criticism of the Assumptionists, see Larkin, Church and state, pp. 87–8.

56 De Mun delayed sending the letter for a couple of months, lest it be interpreted as a defence of the Assumptionists. He had also been discouraged by the unsympathetic hearing that the Archbishop of Lyon had received at the Vatican when he expressed similar views to de Mun's on what needed to be done in defence of the orders. Du Lac to General, 28 Dec. 1899 and 24 Jan. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 5 and 6. De Mun eventually sent the letter to the pope, instead of to Rampolla. De Mun to pope, 15 Feb. 1900, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 8.

57 The issue is discussed at length in Larkin, Church and State, pp. 102–45

58 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 18 Dec. 1901, N. 993, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 10.

59 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 29 Nov. 1900, N. 502, A. S. Vat., Nunz. Lor., Busta 3.

60 Du Lac to General, 28 Dec. 1899, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 5.

61 9 March 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 26.

62 Reported in B. de Scorraille to Assistant General, 4 Jan. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 22.

63 Du Lac to General, 4 Dec. 1900, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 16.

64 Sorlin, Pierre, Waldeck-Rousseau (Paris, 1966), p. 427Google Scholar.

65 Conversation between Mgr Angeli, papal secretary, and Léon Harmel, reported in Harmel's circular letter to French ecclesiastical acquaintances, 23 Sep. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. V, 16.

66 Harmel's circular letter, 10 Sep. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. V, 16. Visiting the Vatican in Sep. 1901, Harmel was given similar views by every senior ecclesiastic he questioned. Series of circular letters. Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. V, 16.

67 Labrosse to General, 11 and 24 Sep. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 44 and 45.

68 Report on meeting of the four French provincials, 26 Jul. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 42. The meeting largely confirmed the conclusions of an earlier meeting on 20 June 1901. Franc. 20, fo. IV, 39.

69 Ibid. (26 July 1901).

70 Lecanuet, Edouard, L'Eglise de France sous la Troisième République, III: Les signes avant-coureurs de la séparation (Paris, 1930), pp. 299–300Google Scholar.

71 See note 67.

72 De Mun to du Lac, 1 July 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 34.

73 Labrosse to Assistant General, 7 Sep. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. IV, 43.

74 Labrosse to General, 18 Nov. 1903, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. 1, 64.

75 Labrosse to General, 4 Aug. 1901, Jes. Rom., Franc. 20, fo. 1, 19.

76 Report of 15 Feb. 1904, Jes, Rom., France. 20, fo. I, 68bis.

77 The reports to Rampolla in A. S. Vat. are too numerous to list individually.

78 Larkin, ‘Loubet's visit’, pp. 97–103; Church and state, pp. 170–206.

79 11 Feb. 1901, N. 621, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 8.

80 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 26 May 1901, N. 747, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 8. Health obliged de Mun to ask Piou to assume the leadership of the Catholic party. Martin, Benjamin, [Count] Albert de Mun [: paladin of the Third Republic] (Chapel Hill, 1978), p. 146Google Scholar.

81 Rampolla to Lorenzelli, 14 Feb. 1901, N. 61612, and 4 June 1901, N. 63633, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 8.

82 Lorenzelli to della Chiesa, 16 July 1901, N. 821, A. S. Vat., Nunz. Lor., Busta 4; decoded, S. Stato 1902, N. 64483, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 9.

83 Telegram, 20 July 1901, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 9; Nunz. Lor., Busta 4.

84 Martin, Albert de Mun, pp. 146–7.

85 Ibid. p. 149.

86 Lorenzelli to Rampolla, 20 and 22 July 1902, Nn. 1327 and 71803, A. S. Vat., S. Stato 1902, Rubr. 248, Fasc. 11.

87 Larkin, Church and State, p. 158.

88 Ibid. pp. 120–3.

89 Ibid. pp. 123–6, 182–4, 2I5–6. If the historian is inclined to admire the greater realism of Pius and Merry del Val on the Roman question, there is less to admire in their assessment of French affairs and French churchmen. In these matters Leo and Rampolla had the greater knowledge and the sharper perceptions – for all their over-optimism and wishful thinking.