King Ferdinando I of the Two-Sicilies

The reign of the Spanish over southern Italy and the island of Sicily, in its last instance, can be traced back to their seizure from the Austrian Hapsburgs during the War of the Polish Succession. At that time, the son of King Philip V of Spain, Charles, was placed on the throne. He had previously been Duke of Parma before moving to Naples as part of the constant struggles and trade deals between the great powers over the states of the Italian peninsula. Eventually, he succeeded his brother as King Charles III of Spain (Carlos III) and so he passed the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily to one of his sons, Ferdinand, who had been born in Naples on January 12, 1751. He was to preside over a time of immense tumult, trepidation and transition in the history of southern Italy, ending ultimately in the creation of a new political entity called the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies. Little Ferdinand was only in his eighth year when he became King Ferdinand IV of Naples and III of Sicily when his father became King of Spain. King Charles III was forbidden by treaty from continuing to rule over all three kingdoms personally so choosing his third son to succeed him in Naples was a way of ensuring that the Spanish Bourbon dynasty would still retain the crown.

Obviously, as a small child at the time, actual power remained in the hands of the King of Spain or those officials appointed by him to administer southern Italy. At the head of the local government was a council of regency led by Bernardo Tanucci, a native of Tuscany and servant of the King of Spain who had fully embraced the “Enlightenment” ideas that were sweeping the educated elites of society in those days. Tanucci wanted to keep power centralized in his own hands, “reform” the Catholic Church and make government and society more “rational” as he saw it. His efforts to establish state supremacy over the Church earned him an excommunication from Pope Clement XIII, which he responded to by seizing a couple of Catholic monasteries. Unfortunately, his control of the government also gave him considerable power over the upbringing of his young monarch and he was certainly not a positive influence. Because he wished to hold on to power for himself as much as possible, he made sure that King Ferdinand IV learned only what he wished him to know. He encouraged the boy to be frivolous and concentrate on indulging rather than educating himself. Tanucci did, however, make sure that the King grew up with his sense of values.

Due to this, King Ferdinand IV was more adept at sports and other pleasurable pursuits than he was at administration by the time he reached his majority in 1767. As an absolute monarch, Ferdinand IV could rule as he wished but he still kept Tanucci on his council. His first action as King of Naples and Sicily was to expel the Jesuits from his domain, an act which undoubtedly pleased Tanucci greatly. His second priority was to find a suitable wife to ensure that the Bourbon reign would continue. The choice ultimately fell on Archduchess Maria Carolina, the daughter of Empress Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary (making her, of course the sister of Emperor Joseph II and Queen Marie Antoinette). More like her brother than her mother, Queen Maria Carolina was also receptive to the new ideas of the “Enlightenment” and favored what would become known in monarchial history as “enlightened despotism”. She was like her mother in that she was strong-willed and assertive. In 1768 she and King Ferdinand were married as part of an Austro-Spanish alliance and by the terms of the treaty the Queen was given a place on the governing council where she made her wishes known. This caused a clash with Tanucci, who was used to being in charge, but the Queen emerged triumphant over the old courtier.

Many came to believe that the Queen was the real ruler of Naples, a charge not without some facts to support it. King Ferdinand had been discouraged throughout his youth from taking much interest in government and was known among some of the public as il ré lazzarone which, while hard to translate exactly, could be understood as the ‘peasant king’ or someone who behaves in a very low-class way. He was not known for his great virtue but he and the Queen certainly had a productive marriage if not a happy one as they had eighteen children. Rather remarkable considering that both, at various times, said they found the other unattractive and stayed together only out of a sense of duty and obligation. Still, the King could have his fun while the Queen worked to consolidate her own position of power. Naples was effectively still being ruled by the King of Spain through Tanucci until the Queen succeeded in having him dismissed over the issue of the Freemasons (Tanucci banned them, the Queen wanted the ban lifted). The Queen took her advice from her Austrian homeland, such as strengthening the navy, and took the country much closer to Great Britain through the influence of an Englishman who was one of her favorites (and about whom there was no shortage of gossip). She also tried to patch up relations with the Catholic Church.

All of this caused a great deal of bad feelings amongst the Spanish Royal Family. The Queen had appointed an Englishman to power at around the same time King Charles III was going to war against Britain alongside France and the fledgling United States. Ties with Austria and Britain increased to the extent that one could easily wonder which country really held power over Naples. For the average Neapolitan, however, none of this might have mattered. They were used to doing things their own way and would ‘keep calm and carry on’ no matter which foreign dynasty happened to be ruling them at the moment. However, the experiments with the philosophy of the “Enlightenment” undermined traditional reverence for the monarchy. In some countries, this had no immediate effect so long as the country was well governed. Unfortunately, under King Ferdinand IV, Naples was not being well-governed. The Queen’s English favorite had actually done considerable harm to the administration of the country. So it was that a perfect storm was brewing in Naples when word came of the outbreak of the French Revolution, culminating in the horrific regicide of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.

The effort, nominally by King Ferdinand IV, to be an “Enlightened Despot” came to a screeching halt and the King and Queen turned in a decidedly reactionary direction due to the alarming events in France. In 1793 Ferdinand IV pledged the Kingdom of Naples to the War of the First Coalition against republican France and began trying to root out any hint of republicanism or republican sympathy in southern Italy wherever it could be found. However, when he was obliged to make peace with France in 1796 revolutionary agitation at home started to increase again. Queen Maria Carolina persuaded King Ferdinand to declare war on France again in 1798 and though Neapolitan troops briefly marched north and occupied Rome, it was a complete fiasco with the army retreating at the first sign of a French advance (the Neapolitan army had a very poor reputation in this period). The revolutionary forces in Naples saw their chance and began to rise up in imitation of their radical French counterparts. The Royal Family, fearful of sharing the fate of the French King and Queen, immediately fled to Sicily with help from Britain.

Once ensconced in Palermo, King Ferdinand showed his fangs and began massacring any suspected republican he could get his hands on. However, back in Naples, the middle and upper classes that had supported him had been left to the bloodthirsty mob and so quickly called on the French for help. The result was the occupation of southern Italy by French forces and the establishment of the ridiculous contrivance known as the Parthenopaean Republic. In response to this outrage, and in an illustration of how far he had back-peddled from his “Enlightenment” days, King Ferdinand turned to one of the most dashing and fascinating characters of Italian history, the rich, religious, royalist reactionary Ruffo, that is His Eminence Fabrizio Cardinal Ruffo. I must admit here to my partiality as Cardinal Ruffo and his exploits have always been a favorite of mine. The Italian cleric landed in Calabria and raised a counterrevolutionary force of irregulars he dubbed the ‘Army of the Holy Faith’ (they were commonly known as the Sanfedisti). With artillery from Britain and some additional support from Russia, Cardinal Ruffo went after the revolutionaries Old Testament style and his cohorts of religious royalists soon had the whole of southern Italy in an uproar and eventually forced the French to agree to an armistice and wash their hands of the region. It was a glorious and unexpectedly successful operation that was also a colorful adventure, with pious as well as gruesome elements to it.

By July of 1799 King Ferdinand IV had moved from executing republicans in Palermo to executing republicans in Naples, so things were moving in the right direction. However, Napoleon was not going to permit a Bourbon monarchy to remain on the continent he wished to dominate and soon French troops were on their way back led by the Emperor’s brother Joseph. Once again, in 1806, King Ferdinand and his retinue fled to Palermo and Joseph Bonaparte was appointed King of Naples by his brother. Still, the French were constantly having to deal with guerilla attacks and were issued a stinging defeat by the British in the south though the British expedition withdrew afterwards. In 1808 Ferdinand IV received a new nemesis when Joseph Bonaparte was withdrawn to become King of Spain and replaced by Marshal Joachim Murat. He did not have much sense but he was more of a threat as he was more popular than his predecessor, mostly because of his ambition which pushed him toward Italian independence rather than French domination. This naturally led to problems with Napoleon and eventually Murat was defeated by the Austrians and after he fled to France, the Austrian Imperial Army marched in to Naples and announced the restoration of King Ferdinand IV to his throne.

During this time, the Bourbon King and Queen had been having problems of their own in Sicily. The British had given them a subsidy and a garrison to guard them and naturally expected no small amount of influence to coincide with this protection. They tried to steer the country in the direction of a Burkean constitutional monarchy, to encourage popular support for the establishment by having people invested in it rather than for fear of being shot. King Ferdinand was more of the “better dead than red” persuasion and ultimately this resulted in the Queen being exiled and the King forced to issue a classical liberal constitution and make his son regent. However, once Napoleon was defeated and the British had pulled out, King Ferdinand reversed all of that, went back to absolute monarchy, enlisted the help of Austria in regaining his throne in Naples and had Murat shot when he made a bid to restore himself.

At the Congress of Vienna, King Ferdinand IV of Naples abolished the Sicilian constitution and declared himself King Ferdinand I of the Two-Sicilies. All previous agreements were annulled, all enemies or potential enemies of the regime were executed and the Austrian army remained to garrison southern Italy and enforce his rule. He also appointed an Austrian commander-in-chief of the Neapolitan army. All of this caused increasing resentment among the populace and a growth in the revolutionary secret society known as the Carbonari. In 1820 there was a mutiny among the army and an attempted military coup led by General Guglielmo Pepe which forced King Ferdinand I to issue a constitution while at the same time sending troops to stamp down a rebellion for independence in Sicily. All of this chaos drew the attention of the great powers of the Holy Alliance who feared a revolutionary outbreak could spread. King Ferdinand repudiated, again, the constitutional concessions he had made, further damaging his credibility and winning himself no friends amongst the other crowned heads of Europe for his antics. In the end, Prince Metternich sent another Austrian army to occupy southern Italy, defeating the Neapolitan rebels and securing Ferdinand I on his throne once again.

In the end, as before, King Ferdinand abolished the constitution and tried his best to have all revolutionary elements executed but he depended on the Austrian military to sustain himself and, as before, this came at a price. By the end of his life, Austria was effectively ruling southern Italy in his name through the Austrian ambassador Count Charles-Louis de Ficquelmont. King Ferdinand I of the Two-Sicilies, at the age of 73, gave up the ghost in Naples on January 4, 1825. He had started his reign with his country being ruled from Madrid and had ended it with his country being ruled from Vienna. In the intervening years there had never been any shortage of people, all outsiders, wishing to do his job for him. At first he had been content to leave matters to his wife but the horror that swept Europe after the outbreak of the French Revolution  changed all of that. Today he is often remembered as a rather crude and brutal man, constantly being propped up by foreign bayonets to maintain himself. He is the man who ate spaghetti with his fingers at the opera and had lots of people executed. However, before judging him too harshly, one should keep in mind the fact that he was intentionally raised to be disinterested in government and not really prepared for the task. Thus, it is no great surprise that he wasn’t terribly good at it. Also, after going along with the “Enlightenment” trend, his later penchant for putting people to death was a reaction to a very real fear that what had happened to his fellow Bourbon monarch in France could happen to him. What is unfortunate is that he too often broke his own word, damaging his reputation among his subjects and the other courts of Europe. It was a tendency that would be repeated with his successors and the pattern of his reign would, unfortunately, be repeated in a number of ways until the Bourbon reign over the Two-Sicilies came to an end.

First Savoy Reign Over Sicily

The island Kingdom of Sicily was first under the reign of the House of Savoy from 1713 to 1720 during the reign of King Vittorio Amedeo II. It came about as a result of Piedmontese participation in the War of Spanish Succession alongside Great Britain and Austria. At first, it was proposed to give the House of Savoy both Naples and Sicily (at the time separate kingdoms) but as the Hapsburgs still ruled in Naples this was finally dropped. King Vittorio Amedeo II was more interested in gaining Milan which the Savoy had been reaching for over many years but his Dutch and Austrian allies objected to this. The British, under Queen Anne, finally took decisive action and, being in command of the Mediterranean thanks to the success of the Royal Navy, announced that Sicily would be given to the House of Savoy and King Felipe V of Spain had little choice but to agree and renounce his claim on the island. The British tried to maintain a commanding influence but King Vittorio Amedeo II refused to grant British merchants any additional favors than they had known previously under the Spanish. Still, Britain was convinced that Sicily would be better off and the region more stable under the Savoy.

The King & Queen depart for Sicily

King Vittorio Amedeo II and Queen Marie d’Orleans arrived in October of 1713 to formally take possession of their new kingdom and were given a joyous welcome from the local population when they were delivered to Palermo by a British naval squadron. Early the next year the Sicilian parliament was assembled to officially swear their allegiance to the new king and the Savoy Crown. The Kingdom of Sicily was to remain legally separate from the continental realms of the House of Savoy but in personal union through King Vittorio Amedeo II. However, there did arise some complaints that the King was putting Piedmontese officials in positions of importance after being less than impressed with the state of affairs that he found on the island with widespread waste and corruption. Still, the Sicilians could not complain too much since financial aid also poured in from Turin to allow Sicily to balance its budget. A census was taken of all people and livestock and the King introduced beneficial reforms to the tax system and the customs office which had been riddled with corruption. Still, many groaned at the additional ‘special taxes’ that had to be implemented to carry out these changes.

The Hapsburgs did not recognize the treaty, the Treaty of Utrecht, by which the Savoy gained the Kingdom of Sicily and so, being just across the straights in Naples, King Vittorio Amedeo II placed priority on improving the coastal defenses of Sicily and raising a new army which consisted of two regiments of volunteers and a unit of royal guards. When King George I came to the British throne and the Royal Navy was withdrawn from the Mediterranean, King Vittorio Amedeo II also took care to expand the Sicilian navy to pick up the slack. The King, of course, ultimately had to return to Turin but left behind a Viceroy to rule in his place. The Viceroys had plenty of problems to deal with as, despite the renunciation of Felipe V, the Spanish maintained agents on the island who spread pro-Spanish and anti-Savoy propaganda and encourage resistance. The reconciliation between France and Austria also posed a potential threat. There was also a ridiculous and frustrating dispute with the Holy See over Savoy rule of the island.

King Vittorio Amedeo II

Problems with the Church came about when a local bishop objected to having to pay an import duty on chickpeas. He excommunicated the local customs officials, which some might call just a slight overreaction, but the Tribunal of the Monarchy, which was set up to exercise the special ecclesiastical authority traditionally given to the kings of Sicily since the Norman era, nullified the excommunications. The bishop then placed his entire diocese under the interdict and left to ask help from Rome. The issue was further complicated by the fact that the Pope, Clement XI, did not recognize the authority of the tribunal because he did not recognize the right of King Vittorio Amedeo II to the throne of Sicily because, claiming it as a papal fief and the King of Sicily his vassal, the change in royal leadership had happened without his approval. The King sent agents to Rome to reach an amicable agreement but the Pope refused to consent to the clergy paying any taxes or import duties and ordered the tribunal abolished. The King refused to disband the tribunal and refused to be invested as a vassal of the Pope, on the grounds that Sicily was a sovereign kingdom. The Pope then re-issued the excommunications and interdict as well as placing spiritual restrictions on the local clergy who were loyal to the King while the King had pro-papal clergy arrested. Finally, the Pope did consent to the existence of the tribunal if he could control it but as he still refused to recognize the King, there was no agreement.

The era of Savoy rule over Sicily started to come to an end in 1717 when the Spanish attacked Sardinia which was then ruled by the Hapsburgs. This set off the War of the Quadruple Alliance with Spain on one side and the British, French, Dutch, House of Hapsburg and House of Savoy on the other. The following year the Spanish also invaded Sicily. The British navy won a victory that stranded the Spanish forces and the Austrians sent troops in from Naples. Spain was finally forced to concede defeat but Savoy rule over Sicily would not be restored. Instead, the allied powers essentially forced King Vittorio Amedeo II to take the Kingdom of Sardinia in exchange for Sicily. Although his forces had held no control over the island since 1718, the official hand-over did not occur until 1720 and the King did not relinquish his title as ‘King of Sicily’ until 1723 and was still seeking compensation for the loss as late as the autumn of 1729. Of course, the Crown of Savoy did eventually return to Sicily in 1860/61 with the Expedition of the Thousand under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the name of King Vittorio Emanuele II.

The Sicilian Revolution of 1848

1848 is known as the year of revolutions and it all started on this day in 1848 on the island of Sicily. It was, in many ways, an attempt to revive the previous constitutional government enacted in Sicily after the French conquest of Italy when the Bourbon Royal Family was forced to flee Naples and relocate to the island. The nobles were able to pressure King Ferdinando IV of Naples (Ferdinando III of Sicily and later Ferdinando I of the Two-Sicilies) to enact a constitution based on the British Westminster model of limited government, constitutional monarchy. However, once Napoleone was defeated and the King restored to his throne in Naples the constitution was promptly abolished. The 1848 Revolution was an attempt to revive that model, along with Sicilian independence but also as part of a grander scheme to create a united federation of Italian states. The uprising was timed to coincide with the birthday of King Ferdinando II of the Two-Sicilies who had early been the hope of the liberals but who later suppressed the advocates of constitutional government in Sicily. That is what the "revolutionaries" of 1848 wanted, a constitutional monarchy under the Bourbons that would be part of a wider Italian federation.

After further rebellions broke out in southern Italy, Ferdinando II did finally agree to having a constitution, however, it was never finalized due to a dispute with the King over his oath of 'office' as it were. Eventually, the Bourbon troops were able to use force to suppress the new government, restore the absolute power of the King and the constitution was, again, discarded. However, the revolution in Sicily in 1848 was noteworthy for having produced an independent government for at least 16 months led by Ruggero Settimo ("Roger VII, a name going back to the Norman Kings of Sicily of the Middle Ages). It also sparked a wave of pro-constitutional uprisings throughout Italy because of its real, albeit short-lived, success. The most prominent was King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont-Sardinia who raised the tricolor flag and enacted a new constitution. Other Italian monarchies did the same but all ended up revoking their constitutions after the crisis had past with the exception of the Savoy monarchy in Piedmont-Sardinia. This was the origin of the nickname of King Vittorio Emanuele II as the "honest king" because he stood by the constitution and did not abolish it as his contemporaries had done.

The uprising also set the scene for First Italian War for Independence, led by King Carlo Alberto with the other Italian states participating against Austria, which was not successful. However, it proved that there was a sizable number of people in Sicily and across the Italian peninsula who favored Italian unification. However, it also brought into contrast the division between those who favored constitutional monarchy and those who favored republicanism. The republicans could point to the revocation of the constitutions in Sicily and across the peninsula as proof that the monarchs could not be trusted to keep their word and that republicanism was, therefore, the only solution. However, the constitutional monarchists could point to King Carlo Alberto and Vittorio Emanuele II who upheld the constitution and argue that the problem was not monarchy but rather the individual monarchs themselves who, rather than coming together in a confederation, should simply be replaced by the King of Piedmont-Sardinia. It was one step on the road to the unification of the country and the creation of the Kingdom of Italy.

The Thousand Lands in Sicily

It was on May 11, 1860 that Giuseppe Garibaldi and his “Thousand” red shirts landed at Marsala on the island of Sicily to instigate the uprising against the Bourbon rule of King Francesco II. Although an independent operation, Garibaldi was certainly not without outside support or sympathy. Elements within the government in Turin certainly supported him (as did pan-Italian nationalists in general but this was a stateless group) and beyond the Italian peninsula there were numerous sympathetic governments, one of the most prominent being that of Great Britain (and not just because they appreciated the fashion-sense of his army). It helps to explain how such a seemingly hopeless and even farcical operation turned out to be such a stunning success. After all, it seems incredible that an invasion force of a thousand men could end up bringing down the entire Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies; that long-time Spanish bastion in the south of Italy. Actually, “The Thousand” were probably not even that numerous and they consisted, for the most part, of volunteers drawn from across northern Italy, unfamiliar with Sicily and unaccustomed to the harsher climate of the south. Some were not even Italians at all such as the Hungarian Legion of Italia which fought enthusiastically for the famous Garibaldi after having their own nationalist movement thwarted. How could such a rag-tag group be victorious?

The Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies certainly has the reputation of being a place one would not expect to find much sympathy for a revolutionary like Garibaldi. It has long been known as a very conservative, Catholic, absolute monarchy in traditional Spanish style. However, that proved to be part of the downfall of the kingdom and part of the reason for the lack of international support for the status quo and a pro-Garibaldi attitude from the British in particular. Ever since the Congress of Vienna the “Great Powers” had been most concerned with peace and stability, keeping rebellion from ever breaking out anywhere for fear of it spreading as in the past. The British (and most other northern European monarchies such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and even Prussia to a degree) firmly believed that the best way to ensure stability as through a constitutional monarchy that provided for some level of popular representation. Effectively, to give the people enough of a voice that they would feel they had some control over the national destiny but never enough to actually determine policy. This, the accepted thinking went, would make the public less susceptible to the arguments of the revolutionaries who wanted the people to rise up and overthrow the monarchy. This is why, in Spain, for example, the French and the British supported the liberal monarchists of the Queen mother rather than the absolute monarchists of Don Carlos. Or at least it was one reason.

King Ferdinando II of the Two-Sicilies, part of the Spanish Royal Family, annoyed the British by siding with Don Carlos. They were also concerned by the growing discontent in the Two-Sicilies and the increasing support for a republican revolution. Why were the British or French concerned at all? What was Sicily to them? The answer, of course, was that Sicily was right next to the British naval bastion of Malta and straddled the main seaway to the Suez Canal which was just starting to be built the year before Garibaldi and his men landed at Marsala. The French and British were therefore greatly concerned about any unrest that might disturb this enterprise upon which so much of global commerce was to depend. The British even sent warships to encourage the Neapolitan navy to stay away while Garibaldi and his men were landing (once the troops had disembarked the Neapolitans destroyed one ship and captured the other).

When Garibaldi landed, his forces were not opposed at all. The Neapolitan army, while not exactly having the best reputation in the world, should have been able to swamp such a tiny group with their massive numerical superiority if nothing else. However, King Francesco II inexplicably failed to take decisive action such as leading the army himself. Compounding the problem was the fact that his forces often did more to turn the local population against the monarchy than stopping the invaders. On May 14 Garibaldi declared himself ‘Duce’ of Sicily in the name of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia and the following day met the Neapolitan army for their first battle. The result was the unimpressive battle of Calatafimi which amounted to a victory for Garibaldi despite being outnumbered 2-to-1. It helped that the Neapolitan commanders seemed to be equal parts incompetent and vindictive. Previously, the one, reliable hardcore of the Bourbon forces had been the Swiss mercenary guard. However, they had earlier gone on strike for better pay and King Francesco II responded by having them all massacred; which was probably not the best idea.

Garibaldi captured Palermo and his ranks slowly grew as locals volunteered to join him. The Neapolitan army also had a problem with desertion. A key element was the local aristocracy who responded in various ways to the crisis, none of them very helpful to Francesco II. Some fled the island immediately as soon as Garibaldi landed and these were those most supportive of the Bourbon monarchy. Obviously, they would be no help. Most, however, considered the cause of Francesco II lost and decided to make common cause with Garibaldi who promised to respect their rights and privileges. This would later cause a degree of rebellion and banditry by those peasants who felt Garibaldi had sold them out by not tearing down the aristocracy completely and redistributing their lands. King Ferdinando II had shown that he would do whatever was necessary to maintain his rule, be it promising a constitution only to revoke it later or shooting down rebels and shelling entire cities to rubble. If he had still been around things might have been different but few had confidence that Francesco II was made of such tough stuff. The pragmatic types looked at the situation and reasoned that the Bourbons were doomed and their only options for the future would be a united Italy ruled by Giuseppe Mazzini and his radical republicans or a constitutional monarchy ruled by King Vittorio Emanuele II. Mazzini was unthinkable so these invariably suppressed their distaste for Garibaldi and supported his red shirt army to maintain the existing social order.

Rebel forces soon besieged Palermo, with disastrous consequences for the Neapolitan side. Political prisoners were broken out of jail, causing panic in the rear and the commanding Neapolitan general seemingly lost his nerve and ordered a retreat only to then order his artillery to shell the city indiscriminately, killing hundreds of civilians, many of whom must have been loyal to the Bourbon monarchy. Naturally, this made the cause of the King in Naples all the more unpopular (though he, of course, had nothing to do with it). Still, more Neapolitan troops arrived and the city might have been retaken but the commanding general, whether due to befuddled panic or simply corruption, decided to surrender. The Neapolitan troops began withdrawing from the island, even where they held the upper hand, and in their absence several peasant rebellions broke out. These were then suppressed by Garibaldi’s red shirts which, again, bewildered many of the locals who had envisioned him as their liberator. These rebels, however, were typical of the types who would have seized power and set up a revolutionary republic if not for the presence of Garibaldi who was moderating his more radical inclinations to win the support of powers like Piedmont-Sardinia and Great Britain.

In a last, desperate effort to avoid disaster and win back popular support, King Francesco II issued a constitution in June but it was to no avail. After the “now you see it, now you don’t” constitutions of his father, very few people were prepared to believe that the King was serious about constitutional government and simply ignored him. More volunteers joined Garibaldi though the Neapolitan army still had some sizeable garrisons on the island. In July Garibaldi captured Milazzo with 5,000 men after the overall Neapolitan commander refused to reinforce the garrison there. His caution did him no good and a few days later he surrendered Messina to Garibaldi by which time it was the rebels who held a significant numerical advantage and the remaining garrisons surrendered quickly. Throwing caution to the wind (and alarming the government in Turin) Garibaldi wasted no time and transferred his forces over to the mainland at Calabria. After that, a string of victories ensued as many Neapolitan forces deserted, some even joining the red shirts and most of those who did offer resistance did so with little support or coordination. The army and navy seemed to melt away, King Francesco II fled Naples and made his last stand at Gaeta.

The Neapolitans were still able to slightly outnumber the forces of Garibaldi and might have defeated him, at least temporarily, were it not for the arrival of the Piedmontese army under King Vittorio Emanuele II who was alarmed at how fast and far the red shirts were advancing and just a little concerned about how genuine their newfound monarchist sympathy was. Between them, Gaeta was doomed (though it would hold out until early the following year) and at the bridge of Teano on October 26, 1860 General Garibaldi and King Vittorio Emanuele II met, bringing their forces together and joining, from that time ever since, the north and the south of Italy together for the first time since the days of the old Roman Empire. In March of 1861 the unified Kingdom of Italy was officially proclaimed. It was not something that either the new King of Italy or even his first minister Cavour had planned for in advance. Even his royal predecessor, King Carlo Alberto, had only ever had ambitions to unite northern Italy. However, just as in those days, the drive to end foreign rule and unite the Italian people was such that it became a race between the republicans of Mazzini and the monarchists of the King of Piedmont to see who would accomplish the act and establish the first real Italian government since Roman times. There was plenty of tragedy along the way, but between those two competing ideologies, it is fortunate that it was the King who reached the goal first.

The Thousand Departs for Sicily

It was on this day in 1860 that Giuseppe Garibaldi and his famous redshirts of "The Thousand" set sail from Genoa to make their landing in Sicily, calling for a revolution against the Spanish Bourbon dynasty and eventually taking power, handing it over later to HM King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia. The expedition is still controversial centuries after the fact, and there are plenty of good reasons for that, but there can be no denying that it was a major step in the elimination of the last remaining foreign influences on the Italian peninsula and toward the unification of the country into a single Kingdom of Italy governed from Rome, something not seen since the end of the original Roman Empire. W il Re Galantuomo! Viva Italia!

The Sicilian Kingdom of Africa

King Roger II

To hear many modern commentators, even some claiming to be historians, speak about the expansion of the Kingdom of Italy into North Africa in the early years of the last century, one would think that Italian troops had never set foot on the continent before. Any Italian alive during the colonization of Libya, for example, would have laughed at such an idea. The Italian presence in northern Africa goes back, of course, to the time of ancient Rome but, more than that, even after the fall of the Roman Empire, Italian forces were never long absent from the “fourth shore”. The Italian acquisition of the provinces that became Libya as well as the frustration at the colonization of Tunisia by France are often painted today as simple aggression, yet, when one understands the very long history of close Italian association with this region one can see why, when the Kingdom of Italy began to colonize at least part of northern Africa, the Italians were not “arriving” but rather “returning” to lands that had long been ruled from the Italian peninsula. One of the most overlooked periods that serves as one example was that of the Kingdom of Africa under the Norman King of Sicily Roger II.

The story, starts much earlier, with Norman-Sicilian forces making forays into northern Africa in 1123; the first of many. Even then, Count Roger I of Sicily was already keeping troops in Mahdia in Tunisia to collect export duties. By 1135 King Roger II already had what amounted to a defacto Sicilian protectorate over most of the north African cities closest to southern Italy based simply on their economic interdependence. Having conquered Pantelleria in 1123, Roger II captured the pirate island of Djerba in 1135. By 1142 he established a protectorate over Mahdia after they were unable to make their grain payments on time. The local emir remained on the throne but was forced to accept the King of Sicily as his overlord as he had already become deeply beholden to Roger II because of the vast sums of money he had borrowed from him. In 1146 Norman-Sicilian forces captured Tripoli which, after suffering a terrible famine, had fallen into civil war. After that, numerous other local chieftains came forward to recognize Roger II as their overlord, valuing the security and economic prosperity that came with association with the Kingdom of Sicily. In 1148 Norman troops led by George of Antioch conquered Tunisia after the emir of Mahdia rose against Roger II. The Sicilian forces soon took control of the entire north African coast between Bona and Tripoli.

The strongest support for Sicilian rule came from the Christian minority in north Africa and these people still spoke a local variation of Latin and were actually the remnants of the original population from the time of the old Roman Empire. This is something to keep in mind when people dismiss Italy pointing to the Roman roots of the Italian imperial presence. The links of the chain go right back to Rome and the original Roman communities lasted much longer than most realize. In any event, under Sicilian rule, the economy of north Africa prospered and there was a measure of religious freedom too. Once he took direct control of the area, Muslims had to pay a special tax for their right to worship, just as the Christians had been forced to do previously when under Islamic rule. However, it was less than the tax imposed on the Muslim refugees living on the island of Sicily itself. This was because the King wanted to encourage the Muslims in Sicily to resettle in north Africa, both to remove them from Sicily and because their presence would help show their co-religionists the way forward.

The rulers of Tunis feared a Sicilian attack and sent Roger II tribute in an effort to persuade him to desist (so that their own rule could continue) but, although he had planned further expansions in Africa, the King was diverted by a war with the Byzantines and died in 1154 without returning to his ambition to restore the former Roman lands of Africa to Christian rule. Roger II was succeeded by his son King William I and the reign of King William I was one marked by rebellions on the part of local nobles, both in the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Africa. In Africa it came in the face of the rising power of the Almohad Caliphate out of Morocco. The local Muslim rulers were discontented because the Sicilians gave them little autonomy when it came to taxation and, as has long been the case the world over, whoever collects the taxes tends to become quite rich (somehow). With the Almohad forces gaining strength on the horizon, many decided to change allegiance, turn against the Sicilians and appeal to the Almohad Caliphate for protection.

At first, King William I was successful in suppressing native rebellions and even struck out at the Egyptian coast and launched raids on the Muslim-held Balearic Islands in an effort to disrupt the supply lines of the Almohad invasion force he knew was coming (already Christian refugees were pouring into Sicilian Africa as the Almohad forces advanced). However, the Sicilian position was quickly seen as a lost cause. The loyalty of local leaders could not be counted on, supplies were low from all the recent conflict and the Almohad forces seemed unstoppable. Soon, almost everything in north Africa had been abandoned save for Mahdia in Tunisia. In 1158 Tripoli fell and the following year Mahdia was besieged. It held out until January of 1160 when the walls were breached and the city taken. The conquerors gave the local Christian population a simple choice: convert to Islam or be executed. Christendom tended to blame King William for the atrocities, for not fighting harder to defend the Kingdom of Africa. Under the circumstances, however, there was little he could have done and few were willing to support him at the time. Indeed, many Christian powers had long been jealous of the success of King Roger II and his grand aspirations. Eventually, under King William II, Sicily and the Almohad Caliphate even became allies of a sort as they battled other Islamic forces that posed a threat to both of them.

Prince Ferdinando, 1st Duke of Genoa

HRH Prince Ferdinando di Savoia, first Duke of Genoa, lived a short life but one filled with promise. He is another one of the “might have beens” that appears in royal history on occasion and during his time he was one of the most respected and admired royal figures in Italy. He was born Prince Ferdinando Maria Alberto Amedeo Filiberto Vincenzo on November 15, 1822 in Florence, the second son of Prince Carlo Alberto of Carignan and Princess Maria Teresa of Tuscany. Only two years later Prince Carlo Alberto was recognized as heir to the throne by King Vittorio Emanuele I of Piedmont-Sardinia. This raised the profile of the young family and soon brought to the forefront the ideas of Prince Carlo Alberto in favor of constitutional monarchy. In 1831 King Carlo Felice died and Prince Carlo Alberto became King of Piedmont-Sardinia and, with his own promotion, he named Prince Ferdinand the Duke of Genoa. Like the other sons of the House of Savoy, Prince Ferdinand grew up being trained to be a soldier and inculcated with the long history the royal family. As a second son, it was expected that he would have a military career.

The Duke of Genoa embarked on such a career, becoming a general in the army and admiral of the Sardinian navy. He gained considerable respect for his role in the First Italian War of Independence (1848-1849) in which he commanded a division of the Piedmontese army. During the course of the conflict his heroism earned him the Gold Medal of Military Valor for his service. He was tall, very similar in appearance to King Carlo Alberto and always led from the front. His soldiers admired him greatly as an intelligent commander and one who would not hesitate to expose himself to danger. Like both of his parents he was also a devoutly religious man as well as a man of high ideals. Many others, evidently, thought the same and agreed with his vision of what a modern monarchy could or should be. In this regard, it is difficult not to underestimate the influence of the British model of constitutional monarchy among the moderate people who were unhappy with their political situation but too traditional to favor something with so poor a record as republicanism. Many people hoped to find success as well as political freedom equal to that of Great Britain by emulating the British model of mixed government with power divided between the people, nobility and monarchy rather than being concentrated at the top.

In 1848, starting in Palermo, the Sicilians rose up in revolt against the House of Bourbon. The nobles of Sicily had, during the Napoleonic Wars, (with British encouragement) forced King Ferdinando III of Sicily and IV of Naples to enact a constitution which gave the Kingdom of Sicily a more British-style government. However, this constitution was later revoked and discontent had spread. On January 11, 1848 rebellion erupted again and in a more violent fashion. The old constitution was restored, establishing a representative government with the central role being given to an elected parliament. Rebel forces took control of almost the whole island (not the Bourbon bastion of Messina) and even talked of establishing a pan-Italian confederation. They also began looking around for an appropriate prince to be the new sovereign of their new constitutional monarchy and, given the leadership shown by King Carlo Alberto in Piedmont-Sardinia, quickly turned to his son the Duke of Genoa. Knowing his temperament and background, the representatives of the British government were pleased with such a choice and encouraged the Duke to accept the offer, with the British ambassador in Turin promising that Britain would immediately recognize Sicilian independence once he did so.

By the summer everyone was well enough convinced and the Sicilian secessionist government voted unanimously to offer the throne to the Duke of Genoa. Since having another king named Ferdinand would have aroused some resentment, it was expected that he would reign as King Alberto Amedeo I of Sicily. However, when the Sicilian delegation came to Turin to make their formal offer, the Duke of Genoa was at the front with his troops and reluctant to leave them. King Ferdinand II of Naples had joined in the war against Austria alongside King Carlo Alberto, the Grand Duke of Tuscany and (for a time) even the Pope, but when he learned that the Duke of Genoa was being considered as his possible replacement on the throne of Sicily, he immediately broke off the alliance and recalled his troops. When the war ended in victory for the Austrians and defeat for the Piedmontese, the Duke of Genoa respectfully declined the offer of the Sicilian throne. Things also began to fall apart back in Sicily where the Neapolitan navy shelled Messina, killing many people, following by a massive campaign by Bourbon troops to retake the island. It took about nine months and was a very bloody affair but finally the rebel government was subdued and their leader forced to flee to the protection of the British on Malta.

That ended any chance of the Duke of Genoa becoming the King of Sicily. However, he proved his worth well enough on the field of battle with the Piedmontese army. At the disastrous battle of Novara, the Duke of Genoa fought like a lion and had four horses shot out from under him. But, in the end, the Piedmontese were defeated and King Carlo Alberto abdicated in favor of his son, King Vittorio Emanuele II. After the war, the Duke of Genoa was put in command of the Piedmontese royal artillery, a branch of the service he set about reorganizing and modernizing. The following year he also achieved some domestic happiness with his marriage to Princess Elizabeth of Saxony, daughter of King Johann and Queen Amalie Auguste of Bavaria. They married on April 22, 1850 in Dresden and the following year had their first child, Princess Margherita, who would go on to one day marry her cousin King Umberto I and become Queen consort of a united Italy. Their second child, Prince Tommaso, was born in 1854 and would go on to preside over the Italian government during the First World War. The Duke of Genoa remained a very respected military figure and when Piedmont-Sardinia joined in the Crimean War alongside the United Kingdom and Imperial France, he was to take command of the reserve corps in the expeditionary force being dispatched to Russia. However, despite being a young man still, he had fallen ill and was growing increasingly frail. He died on February 10, 1855 at the age of only 32 in Turin and was buried in the royal crypt, succeeded by his son Prince Tommaso who became the second Duke of Genoa.

King Francesco II of the Two-Sicilies

The man who would be the last King of the Two-Sicilies represents a quandary that comes up for monarchists from time to time. King Francis II was a man of strong faith, deep convictions and firm principles. He also presided over the destruction and collapse of his kingdom, partly because of those very attributes which make him so admirable. This problem has arisen more than once in the history of fallen monarchies; is it better to stand firm and uncompromising, going down in honorable defeat or is it best to adapt, change and compromise in order to survive? The question will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all. The future last monarch was born Francesco d’Assisi Maria Leopoldo on January 16, 1836 the only son of King Ferdinand II by his first wife Queen Maria Christina of Savoy (the daughter of King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia) who died only a few days after Francis was born.

As his mother died so young, Francis was most influenced by his father and his stepmother Maria Theresa of Austria. His father had been rather moderate but grew increasingly authoritarian in reaction to rebellion. His stepmother, perhaps, was an even greater influence. The two were very close, she considering Francis her son and he considering her his mother. She was a rather reclusive figure and, from start to finish, a staunch conservative who always adamantly defended the absolute monarchy. Francis grew up as an intensely religious and intensely reactionary character (both good things). However, the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies was not the impoverished backwater many would later try to portray it as. The majority of people lived quite modest lives to be sure but Naples was a booming and modern city. The Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies was home to the first railway in the Italian peninsula, there were great institutions of learning and even telegraph communication between Naples and the city of Palermo on Sicily.

Francis had no real problem with technical innovations but he was never in doubt that his royal duty would be to maintain the absolute power of the monarchy and the privileged place of the Catholic Church. On February 3, 1859 Francis married Duchess Maria Sophia in Bavaria in Bari. The marriage would not be without problems. Francis was very shy and could seem stand-offish and it would be many years for the marriage was consummated due to a medical problem on the part of the King. There were also extremely pressing problems for Francis to deal with as he became King Francis II of the Two-Sicilies only a few months after his wedding on May 22, 1859. He inherited a kingdom under threat from rebels within who wanted limited, constitutional government and without by professional revolutionaries and the expanding Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia which offered what the discontented educated elites most wanted.

One of his first acts was to appoint as prime minister the moderate Carlo Filangieri, a loyal man but one who supported the granting of a constitution and that the best way to gain security was to accept the offered alliance from the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. However, Francis II resisted both suggestions and was most concerned with the rumors of rebellion running through the country. A critical moment came very quickly, on June 7, when the Swiss Guard mutinied, demanding a number of concessions from their new employer. The King tried to assuage them with promises of redress while at the same time calling up troops under General Alessandro Nunziante who then marched in, surrounded the Swiss and massacred them. What was viewed as a deadly threat against the absolute authority of the monarch had been bloodily ended, however, in doing so, the King had cut down the body that was the elite corps of his armed forces which would leave him vulnerable in the future to enemies who wanted a great deal more than higher pay and better working conditions.

By this time, Piedmont-Sardinia had consolidated Savoy rule over the area north of Rome (what would soon be the Kingdom of Italy) and another offer of alliance was put forward to Naples. They would divide the Papal States between them, with the northern half of the Italian peninsula being ruled from Turin and the southern half from Naples, each supporting the other. Especially in light of what had already happened, Filangieri urged the King to accept the offer. He, and others, viewed the Papal States as doomed and reasoned that it was better to have Piedmont-Sardinia as a friend rather than an enemy. If they embraced Turin, the Piedmontese could not strike them and if a serious rebellion broke out Turin would be legally obliged to aid in defending the Two-Sicilies. In political terms it made perfect sense but King Francis II could not abide the thought of in any way participating in the partition of the Papal States and robbing the Pope of his political power. The Papal theocracy had ruled central Italy for a thousand years and Francis II viewed any action taken against the Papal States as sacrilegious. Filangieri also advocated giving the people a constitution, something else the King would not countenance. Again, the offer of alliance was refused and Filangieri, sensing the coming disaster, resigned when his advice on the alliance and the constitution was not taken.

With pious bravery, King Francis II prayed, trusting in God to deliver his realm from danger. The Papal States were absorbed along with the central Italian duchies by Piedmont-Sardinia and, with many feeling a shift in the wind, revolutionary plots became common in the Two-Sicilies which even the King’s secret operatives were powerless to stamp out. Many were executed but many also escaped or hid themselves until the professional revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi arrived, with Piedmontese (and covert British) support, to invade Sicily. In May of 1860 Garibaldi and his thousand red shirts conquered Sicily with relative ease and, ignoring advice to the contrary, quickly planned to move to the peninsula. King Francis II, alarmed that the situation had become so critical, announced he was granting a constitution but, by that time, it was too little, too late and as Garibaldi and his forces invaded the government and the army began to fall apart with many officials and army officers deserting to the enemy. The King tried to arrange a peace or even a truce but it was to no avail and as Garibaldi approached he and the Queen fled Naples for the coastal fortress city of Gaeta.

It was there that King Francis II became a legend. His demeanor was no longer seen as shy and aloof but calm and courageous, cool under fire as he moved among his soldiers defending the walls. The French navy defended them by sea and Gaeta proved a tough nut to crack. However, the French finally withdrew their ships and Piedmont-Sardinia dropped all pretenses and formally joined the conflict, defeating the Neapolitan army (or what was left of it) and moving in to besiege Gaeta as well. It was a bitter pill for King Francis. Victor Emmanuel II (soon to be the first King of Italy) was his blood relative after all. However, the Piedmontese felt no compunctions about their involvement. As they saw it, multiple times they had extended the hand of friendship to the Two-Sicilies only to have it slapped away. Refusing to be their friend, King Francis would have to be their enemy. This he did with a quiet heroism that made his relative handful of troops defending Gaeta all but worship him. Like his stepmother he had always been somewhat withdrawn and never the populist sort of monarch but at this final crisis he showed, at least those in the besieged city, what his true colors were and they adored and admired him for it. He looked after the welfare of the people in the city and shared the danger with his soldiers defending the parapets. However, it was a hopeless struggle and eventually he was obliged to surrender to the forces of Victor Emmanuel II.

A monarch without a country, King Francis II and Queen Maria Sophia went to Rome where they were sheltered by Pope Pius IX and established a court-in-exile. At the outset many nations still recognized Francis II as the lawful King of the Two-Sicilies and the Pope was very gracious toward the gallant fallen monarch, perfectly aware of the fact that, to a degree at least, his misfortunes were the result of his refusal to take part in the partition of the Papal states. However, his time in Rome was not happy nor did it last for very long. The other nations of Europe may have sympathized with Francis II but many also viewed him as the author of his own problems and none were willing to provide actual assistance. As the Kingdom of Italy was consolidated even diplomatic recognition began to fall away. The Queen also began having an affair with a member of the Papal military corps, unknown to the King, and finally had to be spirited away when she became pregnant by the man. When the last foreign troops were withdrawn from the Italian peninsula Rome was occupied and made the capital of the new Kingdom of Italy. The Pope shut himself up in the Vatican and refused to come out while Francis II had to look for a new place of exile. France, Austria and Bavaria were all temporary homes.

The Queen, after having her baby and giving the child away confessed her affair to her husband. King Francis, perhaps not surprisingly, forgave the woman and finally took it upon himself to endure the operation that would correct the problem that kept him from performing his marital duties. It was a success and finally the two were able to live together fully as man and wife and soon a daughter was born to the exiled King and Queen in 1869. They were both overjoyed but this soon turned to despair when the baby girl, named Maria Cristina Pia, died only a few months later. It seemed that nothing had been spared the last King of the Two-Sicilies. The Queen became increasingly depressed and, for the most part, the King had only his still firm Catholic faith to give him comfort. He never ceased praying that God would effect a miracle and somehow turn his tragedy into a triumph but it was not to be, not in this life anyway. On December 27, 1894 at the age of only 54 King Francis II of the Two Sicilies died in Austria-Hungary.

Views of the last King of the Two Sicilies vary greatly as partisans on both sides of the unification issue exaggerate their conflicting accusations. The image that Francis II was an authoritarian tyrant who terrorized his poor, suffering people is positively false. He had not a bad bone in his body and indeed was a very charitable and compassionate man. What is true is that he seemed better suited to a seminary than the throne of a country in crisis. Nor was he a flawless and pristine saint, he made plenty of mistakes, many of which were recognized at the time. The fact that Italy became a unitary state rather than a confederation of local royal states can be, in part, laid at his door as he refused to support such an idea even if it would have made him the first King of Italy. However, as disastrous as this proved to be, setting himself against the irresistible tide of history, his reasons for refusing were noble; he would not violate the territory of the Papal States for any reason whatsoever.

What is less clear was his failure to personally take immediate action against the invasion of Garibaldi. Maintaining an absolute monarchy in the wild country of southern Italy where rebels were numerous required a great deal of armed force. The Two Sicilies actually had the largest standing army on the Italian peninsula and Garibaldi, though famous as a revolutionary soldier, did not really have all that great of a record of success behind him. Additionally, he had only about a thousand volunteers, most of them northern Italians (some not Italians at all but like-minded foreigners) unfamiliar and unaccustomed to conditions in Sicily and who often had more zeal than military experience or ability. We know from his performance at Gaeta that King Francis II could be an inspirational military leader and it seems hard to deny that if he had immediately mobilized his army and led them himself against Garibaldi his much larger army could have easily destroyed the red shirted revolutionaries. This may not have saved his kingdom in the long run, but it is at least possible that it would have made Turin think twice about messing with Naples and left the Two Sicilies alone and contented themselves with the rest of Italy.

Francis may have thought that his last minute agreement to enact a constitution would save his throne but, if so, this was a naïve hope. Frankly, by that time, no one was buying it anymore. In the face of revolution two of his predecessors, Ferdinand I and Ferdinand II, had both granted constitutions but both later revoked them once they again had the upper hand militarily. Francis had refused a constitution and when he finally agreed to have one, no one really believed the offer was sincere. The people had learned that they could use force to get what they wanted and they had learned not to trust their monarchs. Shooting all of the Swiss Guards was probably a mistake as well, although we can understand the mentality behind such a move, it was probably short-sighted and robbed the King of the backbone of his military strength. So, the man made mistakes. However, it must also be remembered that he was only 25 when he lost his throne and his behavior at the end was so gallant and heroic that even his enemies had to admire him. In death he left behind a legacy as a brave monarch and a pious son the Church of Rome and it was always that which was most important to him anyway. The propagandists of the victors made a great deal of sport of him after his defeat, which was not only wrong but unworthy. Regardless of the political opinions one might have, Francesco II, last King of the Two Sicilies, should not be ridiculed but revered.

MM Movie Review: The Leopard

As we have recently seen the passing of the 150th anniversary of Italian unification, it is fitting to take a look at a movie that covered this period on the island of Sicily. It is a uniquely Sicilian story and yet much of the drama could have unfolded in almost any part of Italy as the long established aristocracy came face to face with the wave of nationalism and the forces of the revolution. I have often recommended this movie to people trying to understand the many aspects of the Risorgimento. Yet, it is not a simplistic movie. There are few angels or demons but it reveals the complex nature of the situation Italy (and in this case Sicily) found itself in during the revolutionary period. Considering who was behind it, Luchino Visconti (a communist homosexual), I was surprised by what a downright reactionary flavor it had almost throughout. Yet, Visconti, or more properly Luchino Visconti di Modrone, Count of Lonate Pozzolo, was also an aristocrat and is said to have modeled the prince whom the film revolves around after his own grandfather.

“The Leopard” is an epic film in every way; very grand, very colorful, very intricate and very long (depending on the version you see, very, very long). Visconti disowned the shortened American version for cutting out scenes he considered vital, but having only ever seen the Italian version I cannot speak to that. Watching the film you get an idea of how the Risorgimento was viewed by almost every level of society and the sometimes differing views people within each strata had about it. It is, however, the story of one aging aristocrat, Prince Don Fabrizio Salina, throughout this tumultuous period and so the emphasis is naturally on him. Because the Prince (played by American actor Burt Lancaster) is such a compelling character, the viewer cannot help but identify and sympathize with him. As a result, many of Visconti’s fellow radical leftists denounced the film when it came out as being reactionary and putting the old ruling class of Sicily in far too favorable a light. That, of course, is far too simplistic a view. Almost every side is shown in this movie, good and bad aspects alike. Almost no one is entirely pure and yet even the less palatable characters are usually shown as at least having idealistic motivations.

The title comes from the leopard on the coat of arms of the Salina family and the film opens with Prince Fabrizio, the worldly but wise patriarch, leading his family in prayer. They live in palaces, a country estate in the summer months and another as their primary residence in a ramshackle Sicilian village. The nationalist revolution sweeping Italy finally comes to intrude on this family which traces its ancestry back to ancient Rome. Garibaldi and his red shirts are invading Sicily, rallying the discontented to overthrow the Bourbon kingdom. The Prince realizes that the way of life he has always known is about to change forever and there is nothing he can do to stop it. “If we want things to stay as they are, things have to change”. There is a great sense throughout of everyone, from the highest to the lowest, being swept along by the irresistible tide of history; like it or not, revolution is coming. The Prince loves his wife, though after a moment of weakness he admits to his friend and confessor Father Pirrone that it is more of a devoted alliance than a romance. She crosses herself before every embrace and, the frustrated Prince says, despite all their years of marriage and the children they’ve had together he’s never seen the naval of his very proper and pious wife. He is devoted to his children but realizes that the future of the family will not be in their hands.

That duty will fall to his well-born but rather immature nephew Tancredi. He is a young man looking for adventure with illustrious ancestry but little money as his own father squandered the family fortune. Because of that, he needs his uncle Fabrizio as much as his uncle needs him to carry on the family line into the new Italy that is being created. Tancredi, eager for glory and excitement, rushes off to join Garibaldi as he battles his way across Sicily. Bourbon troops execute people while trying to fend off the red shirts, yet some people still support them. Many embrace the revolutionary cause, others look to their traditional leaders for guidance. Prince Fabrizio decides that they will be ruined if they oppose the coming new order and that they must come to an accommodation with the revolutionaries. It also means he will have to stoop to ingratiate himself with the rising middle class, embodied by the comical social climber Don Calogero, mayor of the local town of Donnafugata. Because of the mayor’s astuteness in taking advantage of imposed land reforms he is one of the wealthiest men in the area and set to grow richer. The Prince recognizes that the fortune of this funny little man could sustain his own family in the future.

Tancredi returns, no longer a red shirted revolutionary but as an officer in the more respectable royal army of King Victor Emmanuel II. He is more than willing to marry the daughter of Don Calogero, a stunning but unpolished girl named Angelica (played by Claudia Cardinale) because she is positively gorgeous and in the interests of his family Prince Fabrizio agrees and arranges the match though it is extremely painful for him to do so. When the unification of Sicily with the rest of Italy is voted on, the Prince (after just a hint of hesitation) votes “yes” knowing that most will follow his example and do the same. The mayor later proclaims that the vote was unanimous, however, in one of my favorite scenes, the Prince’s huntsman admits that he had voted “no”. He understood the reasons Don Fabrizio had for voting “yes” but, Spaniards or not, the old Bourbon Royal Family had been good to him and he said to have voted “yes” would have made him feel like a traitor to their memory. Tensions rise but are soon smoothed over. The Prince, who one would expect to be the reactionary, bent with the wind out of self-preservation while his lesser, who had nothing to lose, could afford to be defiant. The Prince admires his loyalty but is nonetheless sure he is doing the right thing. He comforts himself that, at least this new state will be a monarchy (yes!).

The Prince goes ahead with arranging the wedding festivities for his nephew and his beautiful, bourgeois bride. He is aware of his own age, that his day is passing and the transition from the old to the new Italy is seen in what he goes through, his trials, his adjustments and his interactions with others. There is a huge amount that is “said” in this movie of which very little is actually spoken, but you see it all played out like a grand painting that conveys a deep message without saying a word. Don Fabrizio knows what he must do and he does it, conveying mostly with his eyes and body language how difficult it is for him. He was a man used to being in charge, being the final authority and has to come to grips with the rise of a new power system. He finds Don Calogero as ridiculous as anyone and yet he must tolerate him. He finds his daughter Angelica as desirable as his nephew (and every other male that lays eyes on her) and yet he knows he can do nothing about it. In his prime he certainly could have, and we are led to believe he still *could* but such a thing would be out of the question. It is only noticeable because, Angelica knows it too.

Another very interesting part of the movie was when a government official, looking very out of place in Sicily, arrives from Turin for rather flimsy reasons. The Prince keeps him at arms length until the purpose of his visit is revealed. King Victor Emmanuel II wishes all sections of the new Kingdom of Italy to be represented in his government and Don Fabrizio was recommended to be appointed Senator. The Prince is rather repelled by the idea of becoming a statesman. He would be happy to accept another title but not an actual job. The envoy is perplexed by his attitude, having in the course of his visit become very impressed with the strength, sincerity and wisdom of the Prince. However, although Don Fabrizio would not stand opposed to the tide of history and was willing to accept the new kingdom, he was not willing to participate in it and, as he said, would be unable to function in such an environment, never having learned the arts of self-deception and double-talk required of politicians. The envoy pleads with him to reconsider, pointing out how much he could help lift Sicily out of the backward and impoverished state he found her in. The Prince informs him that the Sicilians don’t want to be helped, seeing themselves as always perfect. The envoy begs him to reconsider, sincerely admiring the man, but the Prince can only laugh off his lack of understanding of the Sicilian people and their local culture. Some things will never change. The Prince then, surprisingly (yet not so surprisingly) recommends none other than the ridiculous Don Calogero for the position, saying he possesses just the right qualities for a politician.

The final big scene of the movie is a grand ball, with all of the very finest in traditional, Old World aristocratic opulence, which lasts an astounding 45 minutes. You have to see it to believe it. It is a visually stunning sequence and I’ve never seen any movie that stuck with one setting for so long, following several conservations as a way of wrapping up all of the loose ends of the film and (here is why you must pay close attention) doing it all in spite of the fact that no one is really talking about what they seem to be talking about. It is just brilliantly done and it is not buried, if you have been paying attention throughout the movie you will easily pick up on the unsaid messages being conveyed. What is difficult is believing that such a thing in one *very* long sequence could be pulled off successfully and yet it is. Again, I’ve never seen anything like it. The realism is also no piece of artistic mastery, actual Sicilian aristocratic families were brought in to play the part of the horde of grandly dressed and bejeweled guests who represent the old elite of the Bourbon kingdom that is no more. Yet, some things go on just as they always had.

I will stress again that this is not a movie for “casual viewing”. It is very long and while there are not a lot of complex plot points or anything like that, if you don’t pay attention you will miss out on the innumerable subtleties that make this a great movie rather than just a good one. In case anyone cannot tell, I love this movie. It is an artistic masterpiece. The settings are spectacular, the buildings, the landscape, the background of life in Sicily is done perfectly. The actors are pretty much all top notch (hard to go wrong with Burt Lancaster) and I say that because they all successfully convey so much of the “feeling” of this movie just in their eyes, their expressions and their body language. I think it is a great film, and I’m not alone in that as it won a pile of awards. When it comes to understanding the Risorgimento, I tell people to just watch “The Leopard” and you will come away with a pretty good idea of it. Just so there are no false expectations, it is not a history lesson, it is not hitting you over the head with, “Here’s what happened, these guys were good, these guys were bad,” and so on. The fact that so many radical leftists condemned it as reactionary or a right-wing love letter says something to recommend it. For what it was trying to do, the time, place and people it was trying to convey, I think it hit the mark perfectly. For those who complain that I only talk about movies I hate, here is one from the opposite end. “The Leopard” -I highly recommend it.