The Myth of the “Masonic Risorgimento”

Written by an unknown author

A mythology based on predictable and stereotyped canvases would like to depict the Risorgimento as the result of an inevitable “Masonic plot”.

The nineteenth century was one of those centuries in which accusations of obscure plots and conspiracies abounded. Political opponents frequently accused each other of being supported or backed by secret underground networks: the liberals spoke of a “Jesuit conspiracy”, the reactionaries of a “Masonic plot”, and so on.

But beyond all the polemics and propaganda, how much truth is there in the claim that the Risorgimento was a “Masonic plot”? Virtually none.

Among the four Fathers of the Fatherland, only one was a Freemason. Vittorio Emanuele II and Cavour, both of whom were practicing Catholics, refused any contact with the Masonic lodges. Moreover, it was only in 1859 that the prohibition against membership in Freemasonry was relaxed in the Kingdom of Sardinia: previously this prohibition had always remained in force. Even Mazzini was not a Freemason; indeed he explicitly criticized Freemasonry. Garibaldi was a Freemason, however his membership in the association never translated into “internal” political activity; instead it mainly had symbolic value.

The bulk of the ruling class of the Historical Right had nothing to do with Freemasonry; most of them were liberal monarchists, Catholic and quite conservative. Among the Republicans however there were some Freemasons, but even in this case one cannot speak of a movement dominated by the Masonic lodges.

The great historian Gioacchino Volpe (very Catholic, incidentally) in “Italia moderna” affirmed that after the fall of Napoleon in Italy:

“Freemasonry had fallen asleep almost completely; there was no relationship or very little relationship between Freemasons and Carbonari; many Carbonari clearly refused to be considered Freemasons.”

Freemasonry:

“...began to rise again in the 1860's and only then began to once again weave its web. In those intermediate 40 years, its action in relation to the Italian Risorgimento was insignificant or nothing. Many, indeed most of the patriots, were not Freemasons. Many of them were fierce enemies of Freemasonry.”

Gaetano Salvemini, a socialist and southernist, wrote that:

“The legend that the Italian Risorgimento was the work of Freemasonry was created by the clericals. ... All Masonic forces were in a state of complete inertia between 1830 and 1870.”

(Alessandro Luzio, La Massoneria e il Risorgimento italiano, vol. 2, p. 239)

The greatest Italian scholar of Freemasonry, Professor Aldo Alessandro Mola, in his “Storia della massoneria in Italia”, states bluntly that the Masonic lodges were practically inactive throughout the period between 1830 and 1870, with very few members and very little activity.

The best overall study on the relationship between Freemasonry and the Risorgimento probably remains that of Alessandro Luzio, “La Massoneria e il Risorgimento italiano”, divided into two ponderous volumes with very extensive documentary references. Luzio spoke very firmly of the “Masonic Risorgimento” as being a myth created by the Freemasons and the clergy, who were both interested—albeit for opposite reasons—in attributing to the Masonic lodges a role in Italian Unification which in reality they did not have.

A similar conclusion was reached also by another important historian of Italian Freemasonry, Fulvio Conti, professor of contemporary history at the University of Florence, in “Gli Italiani in guerra. Conflitti, identità, memorie dal Risorgimento ai nostri giorni”.

Marco Meriggi, in his study “Il regno Lombardo-Veneto” (Turin 1987), describes Freemasonry after 1815:

“The Masonic lodges no longer presented themselves as rays of a secret society of revolutionary inspiration, but rather as harmless meeting places for a professional class who, even on the ritual level, had their own reason for joining the regime.” (p. 12)

It should also be added that Freemasonry as a single organization does not exist: there are various branches of Freemasonry, quite different from each other and even having very little coordination with each other, sometimes none at all. In fact, the Freemasons were divided between those in favor of Italian Unity and those against it. For example, Cardinal Antonelli, the foreign minister and éminence grise of Pope Pius IX, and Francesco Saverio Del Carretto, the minister of police for two Bourbon sovereigns, were both Freemasons. Antonelli, moreover, dined with Baron von Rothschild, with whom he had a regular correspondence.

Another well-known Freemason, politically supported by the Masonic lodges, was Napoleon III, who sent a military expedition to crush the Roman Republic and to restore Pius IX back to the throne; later they prevented Garibaldi from marching on Rome in 1860, impeded him again at the time of the Battle of Aspromonte, and opposed him yet again at the Battle of Mentana. In short, the French emperor, the great protector of the Papal States, was a Freemason.

Joseph de Maistre, the ultra-Catholic thinker and father of the reactionary political movement, whose writings are the basis of all Catholic political and philosophical thought known as “reactionary” or “traditionalist”, was also a Freemason. The irony is that Catholic conservatism is anti-Masonic, but has a Freemason as its undisputed founder and teacher. A Masonic circle also surrounded the ultra-reactionary queen Maria Carolina of Bourbon, the wife of Ferdinand I. In light of these cases, it can hardly be said that all the Freemasons were de facto liberals, patriots, anti-clericals, etc.

In the period between 1815 and 1870, Freemasons in Italy were very few and lacked any capacity to conduct “conspiracies” or “plots”. In short, Freemasonry in the years of the Risorgimento was weak and played only a minor role among the very large number of men and parties involved in the national movement.

In conclusion, the idea that the Risorgimento was a Masonic creation is pure mythology without any foundation.

The Myth of Freemasonry and the Risorgimento

Written by an unknown author

The theory of the "Masonic Risorgimento" is mythological. The best overall study on the relationship between Freemasonry and the Risorgimento probably remains that of Alessandro Luzio, "La Massoneria e il Risorgimento italiano", divided into two ponderous volumes with very extensive documentary references. Luzio spoke very firmly of the "Masonic Risorgimento" as being a myth created by the Freemasons and the clergy, who were both interested—albeit for opposite reasons—in attributing to the Masonic lodges a role in Italian Unification which in reality they did not have.

The pro-unitary monarchists were almost never Freemasons, starting with Vittorio Emanuele II and Cavour, who both refused any contact with the Masonic lodges. Even Mazzini was not a Freemason and in fact he criticized Freemasonry, as did his main disciple. Joining the Carbonari did not mean being a Freemason: these were two distinct organizations. However, the vast majority of Mazzinians were not Freemasons at all. Garibaldi was a prominent Freemason, but he was an exception to the rule.

The greatest Italian scholar of Freemasonry, Professor Aldo Alessandro Mola, in his "Storia della massoneria in Italia", states bluntly that the Masonic lodges were practically inactive throughout the period between 1830 and 1870, with very few members and very little activity.

The great historian Gioacchino Volpe (very Catholic, incidentally; he was a Fascist and a conservative) in "Italia moderna" affirmed that after the fall of Napoleon in Italy:

"Freemasonry had fallen asleep almost completely; there was no relationship or very little relationship between Freemasons and Carbonari; many Carbonari clearly refused to be considered Freemasons."

Freemasonry:

"...began to rise again in the 1860's and only then began to once again weave its web. In those intermediate 40 years, its action in relation to the Italian Risorgimento was insignificant or nothing. Many, indeed most of the patriots, were not Freemasons. Many of them were fierce enemies of Freemasonry."

Moreover, it was only in 1859 that the prohibition against membership in Freemasonry was relaxed in the Kingdom of Sardinia: previously this prohibition had always remained in force.

A similar conclusion was reached also by another important historian of Italian Freemasonry, Fulvio Conti, professor of contemporary history at the University of Florence, in "Gli Italiani in guerra. Conflitti, identità, memorie dal Risorgimento ai nostri giorni".

In the period between 1815 and 1870, Freemasons in Italy were very few and lacked any capacity to conduct "conspiracies" or "plots". Marco Meriggi, in his study "Il regno Lombardo-Veneto" (Turin 1987), describes Freemasonry after 1815:

"The Masonic lodges no longer presented themselves as rays of a secret society of revolutionary inspiration, but rather as harmless meeting places for a professional class who, even on the ritual level, had their own reason for joining the regime." (p. 12)

In short, during the years of the Risorgimento Freemasonry was very weak and played a minor role, that is to say marginal.

The Forced Germanization of the Val Venosta

Written by an unknown author

One of the last Ladin areas to pass to the German language was the Upper Val Venosta (Vinschgau). It was not a voluntary transition from Ladin to a new language, but a forced assimilation which is not often cited or discussed in Tyrolean historiography; indeed, it is often ignored. In the past, Tyrolean historiography was mainly focused on attempting to demonstrate the long history of German culture in South Tyrol from the conquest of the Bavarii onward. Even today, this attitude does not seem to have changed much among German authors.

However, in the 14th and 15th centuries Romansh was the only language used in the court of Glorenza (Glurns). This is an irrefutable sign that the population was exclusively Romansh and monolingual. Up to that time there were many cultural, social and economic contacts with the neighboring people of Müstair and the Engadine, who spoke the same language, which has left an impact on the local culture (architecture, toponymy). The Val Venosta, moreover, belonged to the diocese of Chur.

Around 1600, Romansh in the Val Venosta was in a position very similar to that of Ladin in the Val Gardena today, in other words quite strong. Until about 1620 the Abbey of Monte Maria (Marienberg) called upon the Capuchins of Müstair to preach to the people in Romansh. This demonstrates that the population of the Val Venosta was hardly bilingual at that time.

In 1898 a German historian wrote:

“The Val di Mazia (near Malles Venosta) was still Romansh in the 1600's, and even a century later Romansh was still very common in the Val Venosta. It has already been mentioned that Tubre in the Val Monastero passed to the German language only about 70 years ago, while in nearby Müstair (in Switzerland) Ladin is still spoken today, and even in Stelvio at the beginning of the 19th century there were still people who spoke Ladin.” [1]

“Tubre was cleansed of the Romansh language only after 1750”, says an old history book. [2] The use of the term ‘cleansed’ (German: geräumt) demonstrates quite well the attitude of the Germans at that time. Indeed, the Romansh language was wiped out as a result of a prohibition against using the language. The German language was required for meetings, while the Ladin language was prohibited. Likewise the employment of Romansh maids and servants was prohibited, Romansh customs were prohibited, and even marriages with Romansh people were prohibited. The main promoter of these prohibitions was the abbot of Marienberg Abbey, Mathias Lang, infamous for his fanaticism.

The motive or excuse for this Germanization was the Reformation: it was feared that Protestant ideas could penetrate Catholic Tyrol through the Romansh language (“barbaric Romansh”, as it was also called), since the inhabitants of the neighboring Grisons are partly Protestant. It is of little importance that the prohibition of the language was said to be motivated by these fears. The truth is that when the leader does not understand the language of his subjects, the use of this language is criminalized.

Thus the Upper Val Venosta was Germanized. Despite the methods adopted — methods which anticipated those later used for the assimilation of minorities in the 20th century — the extinction of the Ladin language did not have such a rapid success. According to glottologists, Romansh-speakers still lived in the Upper Val Venosta in the 1820's. Today there are still many testimonies of Ladin heritage in the region: it can be observed in the local dialect, as well as in many toponyms.


References

1. Wilhelm Rohmeder, Das deutsche Volkstum und die deutsche Schule in Südtirol, Wien 1898.

2. Des P. Alois Faller, Benedictiners zu Marienberg Notizen von dem ehemaligen Gebrauche der romaunschen Sprache im Vinschgau, mit Urkunden, von ehemaligen Hexenprozessen in jener Gegend, u.d.g., 212r: “Taufers ward erst nach 1750 von der romaunschen Sprache geräumt”.

The Germanization of the Grisons: From the 13th Century to Today

Introduction

The Grisons (Grigioni in Italian; Grischun in Romansh; Graubünden in German) is a canton in southeastern Switzerland which is divided between three groups: Germans, Italians and Romansh.

Until the end of the 13th century, Italian (in the form of Lombard dialect) and Romansh (a group of Western Ladin dialects) were the only languages spoken in the Grisons. In fact, until that time there was not a single German village in the entire region. Aside from the Germanic feudal lords and some foreign-born clergy, the entire population was Latin. Beginning in the late 13th century, however, a gradual Germanization of some areas began to take place. Despite this, at the beginning of the 19th century the Romansh-speakers and Italian-speakers still formed two-thirds of the population. And yet today these ancient indigenous groups of the Grisons are facing extinction. How did this come to be? What follows is a brief overview which is incomplete but sufficient to get a general idea of what occurred.

For the sake of brevity we will have to omit any discussion of the political, administrative, institutional and ecclesiastical changes which took place between the 9th and 12th centuries, which enabled and facilitated the subsequent ethno-linguistic transformation. Instead we will concentrate only on the ethnic and demographic changes themselves.


The Walser Migration

The first German infiltrations took place between the 13th and 14th centuries as a result of the Walser migrations. Needles to say, the Walsers were neither invited nor welcomed by the Romansh population. They were invited to settle by the Germanic feudal lords and progressively expanded into other nearby Romansh territories. Although in some cases the Walsers lived alongside the Romansh and absorbed them, in many cases the lands in which they settled were confiscated from the Romansh, who were forced to renounce and abandon the territory.

Unlike the Romansh, moreover, the Walser colonists obtained special rights and privileges from the feudal lords. In exchange the Walsers agreed to defend the feudal lords' interests, making themselves the military instruments of the feudal lords. They were also theoretically responsible for police activities and for suppressing any potential peasant revolts by the Romansh. The relationship between the free Walsers and the feudal lords was one of willing servants and patrons, whereas the relationship between the Romansh and the feudal lords was one of serfs and masters. Therefore, from the outset, the Walsers represented a foreign class whose interests were in direct opposition to those of the Romansh.

Overall, from the demographic point of view, the Walser migration in the Grisons was not as intense as it may seem at first glance, because the affected areas in general remained sparsely populated.

The following is a brief town-by-town summary of the Walser colonization:

• The Rheinwald (Valrain), although scarcely populated, belonged to the Romansh area until the arrival of the Walsers, who came from the Val Formazza in northern Piedmont around the year 1270. Some believe Hinterrhein (Valragn) — located in the Rheinwald Valley — to be the first Walser colony in the Grisons.

• Obersaxen (Sursaissa), a linguistic island located in the middle of the Surselva Valley, was founded in the late 13th century by Walser immigrants in an area previously inhabited by a Romansh population. Together with Hinterrhein, it is believed to be the oldest Walser colony in the Grisons.

• Avers (Avras), another linguistic island and previously a Romansh town, was occupied by the Walsers after 1280.

• Davos (Tavate) was a Romansh town until the year 1280 or 1284 with the arrival of the Walsers, who used the town as a base of expansion into other nearby Romansh areas.

• Splügen (Speluca), located in the Rheinwald Valley, belonged to the Romansh area until 1290 when it was colonized by Walser immigrants.

• Sufers (Subere), located in the Rheinwald Valley, was inhabited by the Romansh until being occupied around 1300 by Walser immigrants from Nufenen and Hinterrhein.

• The Safien Valley (Stossavia) consisted of several Romansh villages until the 14th century with the arrival of Walser colonists from the Rheinwald Valley.

• Vals (Val) was inhabited by the Romansh until the 14th century with the arrival of the Walsers.

• Mutten (Mut), a Walser linguistic island in the Viamala region, was inhabited by the Romansh until the 14th century.

• Tschappina (Tschupegna), which still belonged to the Romansh area in the 14th century, became a Walser colony around the year 1396.

• Says, a hamlet of Trimmis, in the Landquart region, was inhabited by Romansh — albeit sparsely — until the 14th century.

• Valzeina, a sparsely-populated Romansh area, was occupied by Walsers in the 14th century.

• Arosa, formerly a pasture or farmland belonging to the Romansh, was taken over by Walsers in the 14th century.

• Praden (Prada) belonged to the Romansh region before being colonized by Walser immigrants at the beginning of the 14th century.

• Langwies (Prauliung) was a hinterland belonging to the Romansh village of Prada and to the parish church of Son Peder. Beginning in 1307 it was colonized by Walser immigrants from Davos, who occupied Fondei, Medergen (Mederi) and Sapun (Samponi), before occupying the entire area later in the 14th century.

• Schmitten (Ferrera), formerly Romansh, was colonized by Walsers from Davos between the 14th and 15th centuries; however the Romansh presence was never completely extinguished: still today the Romansh remain a minority in the town.

• Igis (Eigias), a hamlet of the newly-formed municipality of Landquart, was inhabited by the Romansh until the 15th century when they were forced to move south due to a migration of Walsers.

• Mastrils, once part of the former Romansh village of Zizers, today a hamlet of Landquart, was colonized by Walsers from Valzeina e from the Tamina Valley in the Canton of St. Gallen between the 15th and 16th centuries (although the first documented presence of Walsers in Mastrils dates only to the year 1515).

• Furna (Fuorn), Jenaz (Gianatsch), Fideris (Fidrisio) and Conters im Prättigau (Cunter en il Partenz) were all Romansh areas before being colonized by Walsers between the 14th and 15th centuries.

• St. Antönien (S. Antönia), composed of the former towns of Ascharina, Castels and Ruti, was uninhabited but belonged to the Romansh region and was used as agricultural land by the local Romansh villagers. The valley was gradually occupied by Walsers from the Davos-Klosters area between the 14th and 15th centuries.

• Saas im Prättigau (Sausch), today a hamlet of Klosters-Serneus, was a Romansh village colonized by Walsers from St. Antönien and Klosters between the 14th and 15th centuries, which led to the disappearance of the Romansh language and the Germanization of the local Romansh population.

• Klosters (Claustra) was a Romansh area that was colonized by Walsers from Davos beginning in the 14th century. Towards the end of the 15th century it was undergoing a process of Germanization but still had a strong Romansh population roughly equal in number to the German one. In 1489 it was half German; by the 16th century the area was predominantly German-speaking.

• Valtanna, a hamlet of Trimmis previously belonging to the Romansh region, was occupied by Walsers from Valzeina in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Quite often disputes arose between the Romansh and the Walser populations. Emblematic is the struggle between Laax (a Romansh town) and Valendas (a former Romansh town called Valendano, which by the 16th century had become Germanized by Walsers from the nearby villages of the Safien Valley). In the 16th century, the German population of Valendas began to agitate for independent courts in the German language, which were opposed by the Romansh population of Laax.

Another example is that of the struggle between the Romansh and Germans at Klosters in 1489: a dispute over who should occupy the office of Ammann (first magistrate) — since both parties wished to elect an Ammann from their own ethnic group — resulted in murder and bloodshed. It was later decided by Sigismund, Duke of Austria, that the office should alternate each year between Romansh and German candidates, meanwhile the right to hold elections was abolished.

Courting traditions provide yet another example. For their part, young Walser men from the Grisons would often travel as far as Italy to find potential brides among the Walser villages of Piedmont, rather than seeking spouses among the women of the much closer Romansh communities.

The expansion of the Walsers in the Surselva Valley was halted in 1457 by the Romansh of the Lumnezia Valley, whose count issued a decree imposing restrictions on property rights and mixed marriages between Romansh and Walsers. The Walsers of Vals belonged politically to Lumnezia, which always remained Romansh. The Romansh denied the Walsers of Vals the right to vote in public assemblies until the 17th century.


The Alemannian Migration

Almost contemporaneous to the Walser colonization, a very small migration of Alemanns — today called Bündnerdeutsche — to the Landquart region began. Two examples:

• Fläsch (Fiasca), formerly a Romansh town, was Germanized in the 14th century by Alemannian immigrants.

• Malans (Mellanze) was Germanized by Alemannian immigrants between the 15th and 16th centuries. There was still a Romansh presence until the mid-16th century.

Germanization of Other Romansh Areas

Some other Romansh areas were also Germanized between the 14th and 16th centuries, although they were never colonized by Germans. Some examples:

• Haldenstein (Lantsch sut) was formerly a Romansh village. Towards the end of the 15th century, between about 1470 and 1500, it switched to the German language.

• Jenins (Gianin), Trimmis (Termin), Untervaz (Vaz sut) and Zizers (Zizure) were all Romansh-speaking villages in the 15th century. In the same century the Germanization process was already underway, and by the 16th century the villages all appear to be completely Germanized, despite there being no documented migratory movement, apart from some very small nearby hamlets which had been colonized by Walsers.

• Maienfeld (Maiavilla), capital of the old Grisons Lordship (Bündner Herrschaft), was at one time a Romansh town. In the 14th century several villages were founded near the town by Walser immigrants: Sturfis, Rofels, Guscha and others. In the 16th century, as a result of the combined influence of these villages and the neighboring Alemannians, the town switched to the German language, thus becoming Germanized. The Walsers, however, did not obtain citizenship until the 18th century, and the villagers of Grusha not before 1897.

• Felsberg (Villa Fagonio) and Tamins (Tumein) were Romansh towns which at an unknown date and without any known causes abandoned the Romansh language and adopted German. Some think that the towns were already Germanized in the 15th century, but according to Prof. Pieder Cavigelli the transition occurred in the 16th century in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

Germanization During the Protestant Reformation

In most cases the spread of the German language among the Romansh in the 16th century — favored by the German administrators and by the Walsers of the League of the Ten Jurisdictions — also coincided with the spread of Protestantism, which however was not accompanied by any mass migration of Germans. These cases, therefore, just like those previously mentioned, generally constituted a linguistic rather than ethnic substitution. Some examples:

• Rongellen (Runtgaglia) and Urmein (Urmino) were Romansh villages which, under the influence of the nearby Walser colony of Tschappina, switched from Romansh to German between the 14th and 16th centuries. Some think that Rongellen may have been a Walser colony which expelled or displaced the native Romansh, however there is no documentation proving the existence of a Walser colony in Rongellen.

• Churwalden (Curvalda) and Parpan (Parpaun) were Romansh towns Germanized between the 15th and 16th centuries, mainly due to the influence of the Abbey of Churwalden, which was linked to Roggenburg Abbey in Bavaria.

• Grüsch (Crusa), Küblis (Convalle), Luzein (Lucegno), Schiers (Sceria), Seewis im Prättigau (Sausch) and Serneus — towns located in the Prättigau Valley — were all inhabited by the Romansh. Indeed in the mid-15th century the Romansh language was still dominant throughout the valley. The Germanization of the Prättigau Valley, spreading from the nearby Walser municipalities, began in the 15th century and was completed by the second half of the 16th century. The Romansh chronicler Durich Chiampell reported that around 1540 many inhabitants of the Prättigau Valley used the Walser dialect of Davos in public but spoke Romansh in private; only Seewis and Serneus continued the public use of Romansh. Around 1577 or 1582 the inhabitants of these two towns also switched to German but were openly mocked for their poor mastery of the German language. In some towns such as Luzein there was a migration of some Walser families who mixed with the local Romansh, thus contributing to the Germanization. However, the surnames demonstrate that even after the 16th century most of the population was still Romansh, albeit Germanized.

• Calfreisen (Chiaunreis-Cafrassino), Castiel (Castello), Lüen (Leone), Maladers (Maladro), Molinis (Molinas), Pagig (Pagiai), Peist (Peste), St. Peter (Son Peder) and Tschiertschen (Cercene) — villages located in the Schanfigg Valley — were all Romansh villages until the end of the 16th century. The first of these to adopt the German language were Maladers and Peist, while Calfreisen, Castiel and Lüen for some time remained bilingual. In Maladers, Molinis, Peist and St. Peter the Romansh continued to exist but already in 1577 they were reduced to a minority in the face of German-speakers. It is said — without any conclusive documentation however — that the last Romansh-speakers in the latter four villages died of the plague and were replaced by German immigrants.

• Malix (Umbligo), a hamlet of Churwalden, underwent Germanization in the second half of the 16th century, passing from the Romansh language to German.

• Thusis (Tosana) and Masein (Mazegno) were Romansh villages which, under the influence of Tschappina, passed to the German language between the 16th and 17th centuries.

The Germanization of Chur

Then there is the unique case of Chur.

Chur (Coira) was a Romanic city until the 16th century. In 1464, following a terrible fire that nearly destroyed the entire city, a large number of German artisans and workers arrived from Vorarlberg and Liechtenstein to help rebuild the city. These workers remained permanently in Chur, which later led to the unintended suppression of the Romansh language.

From the late 15th to the 16th century the newly-rebuilt city and its surroundings were inhabited by both Romansh and Germans. Towards the middle of the 16th century Romansh was still spoken but was already eclipsed by German. The city was definitively Germanized — at least in its public acts — by the end of the 16th century in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

In this way the Romansh lost their only urban center and from that moment onward became exclusively a rural population. As a result, from that moment until today, being urban means being Germanized.

Romansh-speakers continued to inhabit that quarter outside the city walls still today called Welschdörfli, which means 'Italian village' or 'Romansh village' (from 'Welschen', a term used by the Germans to refer to Latin peoples), the last remaining vestige of old Romansh Chur. However, over time these inhabitants also became Germanized.


The Extent of Germanization Before and After the Reformation

These Germanic penetrations between the 13th and 16th centuries, in the grand scheme of things, compared to what would occur later, were more or less minor cases of Germanization, substantially affecting only the Landquart, Plessur, Rheinwald and Prättigau-Davos regions. The areas colonized by the Walsers — with the exception of Davos, which became the largest Walser center — in general remained sparsely inhabited by just a few families. Meanwhile, the Germanization of Chur, although a severe blow from the point of view of urbanism, did not lead to the Germanization of the entire territory of the Grisons. Despite the storm, most of the Grisons was still Latin (that is, Romansh and Italian) and remained so until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Let's briefly examine the situation before and after the Reformation:

At the beginning of the 15th century Chur, Churwalden, the Schanfigg Valley, the Prättigau Valley, Maienfeld and the Fünf Dörfer district (the Five Villages) in Landquart were still largely Romansh, indeed almost exclusively Romansh, as evidenced by the language of the tribunals. During that century some of these areas began to undergo various degrees of Germanization. The most affected were Chur, Maienfeld, the Five Villages, Klosters and the south-western villages of the Prättigau Valley (Furna, Jenaz, Fideris, Conters). The total Germanization of all these regions, however, was completed only by the end of the following century, after the Reformation.

At the dawn of the 16th century — shortly before the Protestant Reformation in the Grisons and prior to the process of Germanization of South Tyrol initiated by the Habsburgs in the wake of the apostasy of the neighboring Romansh valleys — the Romansh of the Grisons and the Ladins of western South Tyrol still constituted a geo-linguistic bloc which extended from the Uri-Surselva border and the Chur Rhine Valley (Churer Rheintal) to the Val di Non in northwestern Trentino. However, it should be noted that the Landquart, Klosters and Chur areas were by now divided between Romansh-speakers and German-speakers, thus increasingly isolating the villages of the Prättigau Valley which at this time were still Romansh.

It should be noted also that by this time the geo-linguistic link with the current Ladin area of South Tyrol had already been broken — at least partially — by a wedge of Italian-speakers and German-speakers in the Oltradige-Bassa Atesina (Überetsch-Unterland), the Bolzano area (Bozner Land), the Merano area (Meraner Land), the Passiria Valley (Passeiertal), the Ultimo Valley (Ultental), the Sarentino Valley (Sarntal), and the Renon Plateau (Ritten), which formed a trilingual zone and isolated the western Ladins (the Romansh and the inhabitants of the Venosta Valley) from the central and eastern Ladins (the Dolomite Ladins and the Friulians).

This wedge interrupted an otherwise perfect geographical continuity which would have extended from the Rhine Valley to Julian Venetia, since at that time the Lower Val Monastero (Val Müstair), the Val Venosta (Vinschgau), the Val di Non, the Val di Sole, the Lower Isarco Valley (Eisacktal), the Lower Pusteria (Unterpustertal), the valleys of Luson and Tires (Lüsental-Tierser Tal), Castelrotto (Kastelruth), the Agordino, the Cadore, the Zoldano Valley, Eastern Friuli (Trieste, Gorizia, Caporetto/Kobarid, Tolmino/Tolmin, Postumia/Postojna, Vipacco/Vipava, Idria/Idrija, Circhina/Cerkno, Canale/Kanal, etc.), Istria, Imboden, the Surselva region, the Viamala region, the Albula region, the Engadin, the Prättigau Valley, four of the Five Villages in Landquart, the city of Chur and neighboring municipalities were all still inhabited by Rhaeto-Romance populations, thus forming the aforementioned Ladin bloc from the Chur Rhine Valley to the Val di Non, as well as a second bloc from the Lower Isarco and Lower Pusteria to the Quarnaro Gulf and Julian Alps.

By the end of the 16th century, in the aftermath of the Reformation, the German and Germanized areas in the Grisons were still limited to the following: Landquart; Prättigau; Schanfigg; Rheinwald; isolated Walser villages such as Avers, Mutten, Obersaxen, Vals and those of the Safien Valley; Davos and neighboring towns such as Klosters; Chur and neighboring towns such as Churwalden and Haldenstein, and a few other small towns like Felsberg and Tamins, in addition to the other towns and villages mentioned earlier.

The rest of the Grisons remained compactly Latin (Romansh and Italian). Finally, unlike South Tyrol and Eastern Friuli, the ethno-linguistic boundaries of the Grisons remained quite stable from the post-Reformation period until the 19th century.


Germanization During the 19th and 20th Centuries

For the most part the Germanization of the Grisons dates back only to the 19th and 20th centuries, and in recent times it has proceeded very rapidly. It occurred through all the various familiar means: the migration of German-speakers; the imposition of the German language; the creation of German schools in the Romansh areas; compulsory education in German; the refusal of the German ruling class to recognize the Romansh language in public life; the influence of the mass media; the cultural, political and economic prestige of the German language, etc.

To these one could also add other factors such as the lack of Romansh urban centers, the absence of a standardized language and therefore a lack of national literature, religious division, regional rivalries, and finally the failure of the Romansh to unite their cultural and political interests with those of the neighboring Italic populations in Ticino, the Italian Grisons and Trentino-Alto Adige.

And this despite the fact that Romansh literature was born in Italy in the 19th century among Engadin emigrants known as Randulins: Gian Battista Sandri, Conradin de Flugi, Gian Fadri Caderas, Simeon Caratsch, Zaccaria Pallioppi, Giovanni Mathis, Gian Singer, Gian Pitschen Balastèr, Alexander Balletta, Clementina Gilli, Peider Lansel, etc. These Italo-Engadin poets were among the founders of Romansh poetry. What could have been a very important step towards Italian-Romansh solidarity, both during and immediately after the Risorgimento, in the end amounted to a missed opportunity.

As for the attitude of the Swiss authorities towards the Romansh population, it is sufficient to recall that it was only in 1938 that the Romansh language received nominal recognition by the Swiss government (and this with the express purpose of countering growing irredentism and of alienating the Romansh from the Italians) and it was only in 2004, when it was already on the verge of death, that Romansh finally became an official language with equal legal status as German.

As previously mentioned, the major Germanization process dates back only to the 19th and 20th centuries. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Romance or neo-Latin peoples — that is to say the Italian-speakers and Romansh-speakers — formed the absolute majority of the population in the Grisons. Here are the precise figures:

In 1803 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins c. 64% (36,700 Romansh-speakers; c. 10,276 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized c. 36% (c. 26,424 German-speakers)

In 1850 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 60% (42.439 Romansh-speakers; 11,956 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 39% (35,500 German-speakers)

In 1880 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 54% (37.794 Romansh-speakers; 12,976 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 46% (43,664 German-speakers)

In 1910 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 49,3% (37.662 Romansh-speakers; 20,689 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 50,6% (56,944 German-speakers)

In 1950 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 42% (40,109 Romansh-speakers; 18,079 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 56% (77,096 German-speakers)

In 1980 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 35% (36,017 Romansh-speakers; 22,199 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 59% (98,645 German-speakers)

In 2015 the population of the Grisons was thus divided:
- Latins 28% (29,826 Romansh-speakers; 25,033 Italian-speakers)
- Germans/Germanized 73% (142,378 German-speakers)

According to official statistics, it was only in 1880 that German-speakers constituted the relative majority for the first time in history, and it was not until 1910 that they became the absolute majority. Since that time, the percentage of German-speakers has rapidly increased with each passing decade.

Thus, in the span of about 200 years, the Latin population, from an absolute majority in 1803, has became a minority in its own land, although it should be noted that the vast majority of today's German-speakers are in fact recently-Germanized Romansh peoples, as is demonstrated by the surnames and by historical linguistic data. To these one could add also those German-speakers of Romansh origin in the Landquart Valley and in the Prättigau Valley, who were already Germanized several centuries ago.

More than the Germanization of a region, what has taken place is the near total Germanization of the Romansh themselves, both culturally and linguistically, so much so that in some cases the Germanized Romansh have become more Swiss than the Swiss, manifesting a sort of Stockholm syndrome towards their old masters, not dissimilar to the attitude of certain Germanized Ladins in South Tyrol.


The Germanization of St. Mortitz, Samnaun and Bivio

The Germanization of the Grisons is not an ancient event which dates back to the barbarian invasions; on the contrary the phenomenon has largely occurred during the our parents and grandparents lifetime, and today it is still occurring. Emblematic in this regard are the cases of St. Moritz, Samnaun and especially Bivio, whose Germanization took place before our very eyes.

St. Moritz (San Maurizio) was a majority Romansh village until the late 19th century. By 1880, following a wave of German immigration and the transformation of the small village into a major tourist resort, those who spoke Romansh as a first language decreased to 50% of the population. The figure fell to 20% in 1941, to 8% in 1970%, to 6.23% in 1990 and to 4.72% in 2000. In 1900 Italian was spoken by 31% of the population. The figure fell to 22.83% by the year 2000. Today German is the only official language in schools and administration. Romansh — the indigenous language spoken here at least since 1137 AD — today is taught only as a secondary foreign (!) language.

Samnaun (Samignone), for geographical reasons, was for many years reachable only from Austrian territory. In spite of this, for a thousand years, up until the 19th century, all the inhabitants spoke Vallader, a Romansh dialect closely related to Dolomitic Ladin. In the 19th century this language was replaced by a Bavarian-Tyrolean dialect. The last native Romansh Vallader-speaker died in 1935.

Bivio was founded in the 9th century by Italian farmers from the Bregaglia Valley who spoke a Lombard dialect. In 1860 the Italians of Bivio amounted to 83% of the population (47 Italian families; 9 Romansh families). In 1870 the percentage remained static although the number of families increased to 82 Italian families and 16 Romansh families. By 1980 Italian was spoken by only 42% of the village. By 1990 the figure had fallen to 34.08%, and by 2000 it had fallen to 29.41%. In 2005 German became the new official language, replacing Italian.


The Germanization of Other Romansh Towns

The following is a list of some other towns that were still completely Romansh in the 19th and 20th centuries, but which today are predominantly German-speaking:

• Albula/Alvra
• Andeer
• Bergun/Bravuogn
• Bever
• Bonaduz/Panaduz
• Cazis
• Celerina
• Domat/Ems
• Fledern/Flearda
• Filisur/Filisour
• Flims/Flem
• Ilanz/Glion
• Lantsch/Lenz
• Paspels
• Pontresina
• Rhäzüns/Razen
• Samedan
• Scharans/Scharons
• Sils im Engadin/Segl
• Sils im Domleschg/Seglias
• Silvaplana
• Trin
• Tumegl/Tomils
• Vaz/Obervaz
• Zillis-Reischen/Ziran-Reschen
• Zuoz

The list could go on.


The Latin Population in the Grisons Today

Today in the Italian-speaking valleys there are fewer than 15,000 inhabitants, of which only approximately 85% are Italian, while in 2015 the Romansh-speakers amounted to only 29,826 people or 15.4% of the total population of the Grisons. Overall the Italian-speakers and Romansh-speakers are almost equal in number. Both however are now in the minority from the linguistic point of view.

Ever since the fall of Rome the Latins of the Alps have been in retreat; their territory has become increasingly smaller over the centuries, completely surrounded by the ever-expanding Germanic and Slavic peoples. In the canton of the Grisons, the Latins are now an endangered species and threatened with extinction due to the ever increasing influence of the Germans.

This much-vaunted trilingual canton of Switzerland is in reality dominated by the German-speaking element. Without knowledge of German one cannot survive, neither economically, nor politically, nor culturally: the resulting consequences have already been enumerated. Unless there is a radical change in culture and politics, the ancient Roman and Latin character of the Grisons will die and the entire canton will inevitably be swallowed up by the Germanic world.


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Durich Chiampell [Ulrich Campbell], Raetiae alpestris topographica descriptio (1573)

• Valentin Bühler, Davos in Graubünden (Heidelberg, 1872)

• August Sartorius von Waltershausen, Die Germanisierung der Rätoromanen in der Schweiz (Stuttgart: Verlag von J. Engelhorn, 1900)

• Erich Branger, Rechtsgeschichte der Freien Walser in der Ostschweiz (Bern, 1905)

• Carlo Salvioni, Ladinia e Italia (Pavia, 1917)

• August Kübler, Die romanischen und deutschen örtlichkeitsnamen des kantons Graubünden (C. Winter, 1926)

• Paolo Drigo, Limiti e forme della penetrazione alloglotta nel canton Grigioni (Bassano Del Grappa: Arti grafiche Bassanesi, 1948)

• Angelo Monteverdi, Manuale di avviamento agli studi romanzi (Milano: F. Vallardi, 1952)

• Carlo Battisti, Polemica atesina (Firenze, 1960)

• Pieder Cavigelli, Die Germanisierung von Bonaduz in geschichtlicher und sprachlicher Schau (Frauenfeld: Huber, 1969)

• Peter Nichols Richardson, German-Romance Contact: Name-giving in Walser Settlements (Amsterdam, 1974)

• R. H. Billigmeier, A Crisis in Swiss Pluralism: The Romansh and Their Relations With the German- and Italian-Swiss in the Perspective of a Millenium (The Hague: Mouton, 1979)

• R. H. Billigmeier, Land und Volk der Rätoromanen: eine Kultur- und Sprachgeschichte (Frauenfeld: Verlag Huber, 1983)

• Iso Niedermann, Zur Geschichte der Katholischen Pfarrei Mastrils (1987)

• Fernando Iseppi, Storia dei Grigioni, vol. 1-3 (Coira: Pro Grigioni Italiano, 2000)

• Enrico Rizzi, Storia dei Walser dell'est: Grigioni, Liechtenstein, Vorarlberg, Tirolo (Fondazione Enrico Monti, 2005)

Austro-Slavism and the Denationalization of Italians: The Forced Slavicization of Clergy and Liturgy in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia by the Habsburg Empire (1866-1914)

Written by an unknown author

The forced Slavicization of Julian Venetia and Dalmatia, designed and carried out by the Habsburg Empire, notoriously developed in a variety of forms and ways, including judicial and police activities, deportations, mass immigration of Slavs from the interior, political propaganda, educational measures, etc. One of the instruments used by the Imperial Royal authorities to Slavicize these regions was the Slovenian and Croatian nationalist clergy, through whom they sought to achieve a massive Slavicization of the local Catholic Church in all its aspects, in contrast to the national and religious identity of the Italian Catholics who lived there.

I. Austro-Slavism

So-called “Austro-Slavism” was a widespread political current among Slovenes and Croats that was intended to achieve their national and nationalistic goals within the Habsburg regime and with its collaboration. Austro-Slavism was also popular among other Slavic peoples of the Empire, such as the Czechs. But what we will focus on is its presence among the South Slavs. The purpose of this movement was to promote Slovene and Croatian “trialism”, ultimately leading to the establishment of a third “kingdom”, alongside Austria and Hungary, which, in order to satisfy their aspirations, was to include Slovenes and Croats.

Many Slovene politicians advocated the creation of a new administrative unit, located within the Habsburg Empire, which was to include not only Carniola, southern Styria and southern Carinthia, but even lands in which Italians were the majority, such as the so-called Littoral (Julian Venetia), and therefore Trieste, Istria and the County of Gorizia and Gradisca, as well as Dalmatia. They even claimed Italian territories beyond the Isonzo, claiming that it was part of the Natisone Valley. The boundaries of this new administrative unit would have largely followed the idea fabricated in the middle of the nineteenth century by Peter Kozler, a Slovenian geographer of German origin who was favorable to the Habsburg Empire. In 1848 Kozler created the first map of “Slovenia”, in which he included many territories that did not even have a Slovene majority.

The hypothetical “third kingdom” would also have to include Croatia, Slavonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The fate of the Italians and Serbs in this new national construction would have been, according to the intentions of many Slovene and Croat nationalists, one of forced assimilation, and therefore Slovenization and Croatization. Thus they would have to find a modus vivendi with the central power and the Austrian ethnic group, and denationalize the Italian and Serb minorities within the new administrative structure.

These nationalists hoped to achieve their national reform projects by forging an alliance with certain sectors of the Imperial establishment, particularly the army. In fact, the Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf, a well-known Italophobe (he proposed attacking Italy twice: once after the Messina earthquake in 1908, and again during the Italo-Turkish War in 1911-12), sympathized with the position of the Austro-Slavists. This was also the case with the heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand who, not coincidentally, was on good terms with von Hötzendorf.

Austro-Slavism had the sympathy and support of significant sectors of the Austrian ruling class and was supported by the leading figures of Slavic nationalism, who were, symptomatically, all clergymen: J.J. Strossmayer, bishop of Dakovo; J. Dobrila, bishop of Parenzo and Pola; Janez Evangelist Krek, priest, professor of theology at the seminary of Ljubljana, leader and prominent ideologue of the Slovenska Ljudska Stranka (“Slovenian People's Party”), who supported the union of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs “under the scepter of the Habsburgs” and hoped to find allies within military circles in order to implement his national reform plans; Anton Mahnic, bishop of Veglia. [1]

In fact, the Slovenian and Croatian clergy represented the political leadership of the nationalist movement of these two peoples, because these two peoples had a very weak cultural awareness and lacked an aristocratic, bourgeois or intellectual ruling class which could represent them aside from the clergy. The alliance between the Habsburg Imperial power and Slovenian and Croatian nationalism served an anti-Italian purpose: the Habsburgs saw in Austro-Slavism a way to eliminate Italian influence and found their political representatives in the Slavic clergy.

The Concordat of 1855 between Vienna and Rome had granted to the Catholic Church a number of public functions which had been suppressed during the reign of Joseph II. The Church was assigned the registry office, the power of repression of crimes provided for by canon law, jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, authority over censorship and influence on the entire education sector. In exchange, however, the Church had to agree to reduce its own members to conditions of partial submission to the political power, because the clergy were considered de facto civil servants of the state, and the Emperor could exert extensive influence over ecclesiastical administration, particularly over the appointment of bishops. This made it possible to Slavicize the population at the hands of Slavic nationalist clergy.


II. The Slavicization of the Clergy

The Viennese government made sure to appoint only Slavic bishops in Julian Venetia, a region which was predominantly Italian, and brought in Slavic priests from the Balkans who encouraged immigration in hopes that the Slavs would eventually outnumber the native Italians.

Despite the fact that Italians were the majority of the population in Julian Venetia, even according to the Austrian censuses, and even though some areas were entirely Italian, all the bishops were chosen from among the Slavs by the express will of the government, with the sole exception of the bishop of Parenzo, but he only received the position because he submitted to the will of Vienna. The two leaders of Slavic nationalism in Julian Venetia were not laymen, but bishops: Bishop Dobrila, who was appointed bishop of Trieste (a city with an overwhelming Italian majority) and Bishop Vitovic in Veglia (an island which also had an overwhelming Italian majority). The Slavicization of the episcopal offices was followed by the Slavicization of the priests.

Attilio Tamaro wrote in ‘The Conditions of the Italians Under Austrian Rule in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia’ (Rome, G. Bertero, 1915):

“The priests are cooperating in this distorted system of ethnic and historical destruction of Julian Venetia and Dalmatia. The bishops of the provinces, except Parenzo, have blind devotion to the Austrian government, and all are Slavs, by the express will of Vienna. As such, through the episcopal seminaries and through their relations with the provincial interiors, they increased with great intensity the production of Slavic priests and, taking advantage of the small number of Italian priests that the provinces could produce, filled all the parishes with Slavs, even the Italian parishes.”

The cathedral chapter of Trieste was Slavicized too, because each time a seat was left vacant a Slav was appointed, usually one who was not even a native of Trieste. It so happens that in 1891, out of the 14 canons that constituted the chapter of the cathedral of St. Justus, just one, a simple honorary canon, was Italian, while the other thirteen were all Slavs, including eight who came from Carniola: this despite the fact that the city of Trieste had an overwhelming Italian majority, as shown by the same Austrian censuses. At the same date, there were 92 priests in the Diocese of Trieste originating from Carniola, 16 from Bohemia, 14 from Carsia, 6 from Styria, 5 from Dalmatia, 5 from Croatia, 2 from Moravia, 1 from Poland. In 1900 in the Diocese of Trieste-Capodistria there were 100 Italian priests and 189 Slavs. Most of these Slav priests were not even natives, but were brought in from the interior regions of Slovenia and Croatia in order to religiously Slavicize the region. In 1892 in the Diocese of Parenzo-Pola (which had a net Italian majority) there were 81 priests, among which 56 were Slavs, all from other regions, some even from very far away, since 11 of them were from Bohemia.

The situation was so serious that it even aroused protest in the municipalities. On December 29, 1886 the City Council of Trieste, after explaining in detail the situation regarding the local clergy, declared:

“The City Council recognizes in these actions a clear attempt to propagate Slavism, which is incompatible with the office of the Episcopal Curia, harmful to our schools, likewise to religion and to the public government, unfair to young Italians who wish to devote themselves to to the priestly profession, dangerous to the peace and well-being of the city, and a most serious offense to the national character of the country, to the feeling of its people and to its centuries-old civilization. The City Council very strongly protests against these actions, and in the meantime reserves the right, within the limited means of its powers, to instruct the most illustrious Signor Mayor to give a summary of this resolution to the Imperial Royal Government.”

The Istrian cities of Capodistria, Pirano, Isola, Muggia, Buie, Cittanova and Portole also joined in the protest of the Council of Trieste.


III. Instigating Hostility Against the Italians

The Imperial authorities also took care to stir up Slavic nationalism in order to propagate italophobia. An example of this is the work of the Imperial Royal Commissioner in Istria, Ritter von Födransperg. In September 1848 he sent to several Istrian parish priests an article of political propaganda in favour of Slavicizing Istria. Paradoxically, it was written in Italian: indeed, Italian was the language of culture in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia for centuries, next to Latin, so that even the Slavs themselves habitually used it (suffice to say that the newspaper of the Croatian nationalists in Dalmatia was written in Italian and was called “Il Nazionale”!).

The letter from the Commissioner stated:

“Very Reverend Signors,

I thought it well to send you an attached Italian translation of a fundamental article written on the Slavic nationality of Istria, a refutation of the many unfounded, insipid and other passionate articles, with which certain Italians attempt to suppress the Slavic nationality for the benefit of the Italian people.

I don't believe I would be troubling you if I asked you to disseminate this translation and to explain it in Slavic to the parishioners, in order that they may be instructed in their right to nationality so that they may assert themselves against the Italic people who, as guests on Istrian soil, arrogates to itself rights which the Slavs do not have. Hopefully in the near future Slavic Istria will justly obtain the true benefits of its nationality under the glorious banner of our most beloved constitutional Emperor, and be fraternally united to the other German and Slavic provinces, so there will be a loyal and strong support for His ancestral throne.

After taking a copy of said translation, gently push it forward with solicitude, and circulate it in the manner indicated below.

Pinguente, September 24, 1848

Födransperg, Imperial Royal Commissioner.”

This letter, an unambiguous form of propaganda in favor of pan-slavist nationalism, was written and signed by a senior imperial official and transmitted to a series of parish priests in Istria.

“To the very Reverend Signor Parish Priest of Sovignacco.

Received on the 19th and passed along on September 21, 1848 (Zimmermann, Parish Priest of Sovignacco).

Received and passed along on September 24, 1848 (Novak, Parish Priest of Verch).

Received on the 4th and passed along on October 5, 1848 (Podobnik, Parish Priest of Terviso).

Received on the 7th and forwarded on October 8, 1848 (Kodermann, Parish Priest of Valmovrasa).

Received on October 13, 1848 (Sacher, Parish Priest of Socerga).”

Many, many Slavic priests preached hatred and hostility towards the Italians, or otherwise discriminated against them in various ways, and political campaigns were waged against them. Slovene nationalism in Julian Venetia was built with the decisive support of the Slavic clergy. This was already happening in the crucial period of 1867/1870, during the phase that Slovene nationalists call “the Tabor era”. The tabors were large Slovenian rallies, in which the people were indoctrinated by nationalist orators, who often times were priests.

These rallies promoted many nationalistic and extremist demands: the establishment of a Habsburg Land of Slovenia, which however was to include the entire Julian March, including areas which had a vast Italian majority, such as Gorizia, Trieste, Venetian Istria and eastern Friuli; the Slovenian orators, including the priests, urged Slovenian women not to “defile” themselves by contracting marriages with Italians, thus clearly demonstrating a racist ideology; they went so far as to ask the Empire to arm the Slovenes against the Italians, as happened in a meeting in Collio Goriziano.

The idea of exterminating Italians from the region therefore was part of the Slovenian nationalist movement since the beginning and was expressed with great clarity, accompanied by racist theories based on the “myth of blood” and a belief in the existence of biological diversity between the two nations.

The Tabor Movement first developed in Julian Venetia in October 1868 and had the decisive support of the Slovenian clergy, the only ruling class of the Slovenes at the time, since they were the only Slovenes who had any kind of minimal intellectual education. The Empire in every way favored the presence of Slavic clergy in Julian Venetia, to serve as anti-Italian agents, to the point of habitually appointing Slavic bishops in cities and lands inhabited by an Italian majority. Even if there were differences in degree (greater caution was taken in Gorizia, but they were very aggressive in Trieste and Capodistria), it can be said that the Slovene clergy were the protagonists of the Tabor Movement's italophobia, both due to nationalism and due to loyalty to the Empire: in other words, the hostility towards Italians sprang both from aggressive nationalism and from compliance with imperial directives.

An example of what happened in the Slovenian tabors is offered by the first Istrian Tabor, organized on August 8, 1870 in Covedo (Capodistria): among the participants there were 24 religious. One of them, Lavrič, began by frantically telling the women not to marry Italians, but only to marry Slovenes. Another Slovenian priest, Raunik, delivered a rant in which he claimed, quite falsely, that the earliest inhabitants of Istria were Slavs, when in reality the Slavs only arrived there in the seventh century AD and did not make any settlement until the turn of the ninth century AD. Relying on such a totally erroneous historical claim, Raunik demanded that the Slavs should possess Istria. Then two other Slovenian priests took the floor, both parish priests. While various orators spoke, other Slavic priests in the crowd were trying to inflame the minds of the crowd by launching battle cries such as “Živijo, hocemo, nocemo”. Among the Slovene nationalists present was also Fr. Urban Golmajer, the priest who had destroyed all the Roman tombstones found in the local town of Rozzo during excavations (hostility towards ancient Rome was, naturally, part of the italophobia of Slovene and Croat nationalism), which aroused the indignation of the great German historian Theodor Mommsen: Golmajer was later a candidate for the local Diet on behalf of Slovene nationalists. The initiative of the tabor was an idea of Fr. Raunik and all expenses were covered by the Slavic clergy.

In Dalmatia the work of the Croatian clergy was, if possible, even worse. Its members went so far as openly inciting violence against Italians and taking part in physical assaults. For example, in Zara during the religious festival of Holy Easter Thursday, a Croatian nationalist, incited by anti-Italian speeches made by the Croatian friars and priests, fired multiple gunshots into a crowd of Italian faithful, causing numerous injuries. He was arrested by the Imperial police, but instead of being tried and convicted for this criminal aggression, he was immediately released. It is important to recall a similar case at the beginning of 1909: a group of peaceful Italian citizens from Zara were traveling on boat to Bibigne in order to go on a hike, but they could not even disembark because they were attacked by a crowd of Slavic peasants, incited by their priest, who attempted to stone them to death.


IV. The Slavicization of Italian Surnames

Parish priests from Istria and Dalmatia, who were mostly of Slavic ethnicity as a result of Austrian Imperial Royal policy, from 1866 onwards began a falsification of state records which would last for decades. Because in the Habsburg Empire, which is wrongly considered an example of good administration, the tasks of the registry office were still delegated to the parish priests (an old practice that had long since disappeared in other European countries), the Slavic priests were able to falsify baptism and wedding records, using Slavicized versions of the original Latin and Italian names and surnames.

Attilio Tamaro wrote about it in ‘The Conditions of the Italians Under Austrian Rule in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia’ (Rome, G. Bertero, 1915):

“The parish priests in Austria controlled the registry of state records. The Slavs, ignoring the protests of the inhabitants, were under the strong protection of the Government, with whom they were organically linked in this work: they Slavicized the surnames in birth records, marriage records and deaths records. The goal was to create statistical data and official documents that would seemingly substantiate the non-existence or gradual extinction of Italianity in the region, in order to effect Government policy.”

The work of forced Slavicization of Italian names and surnames by Slavic clergy, with the connivance of the Austrian authorities, is meticulously documented in a study by Alois Lasciac entitled Erinnerungen aus meiner Beamtencarrière in Österreich in den Jahren 1881-1918 (Trieste 1939). Doctor Alois Lasciac, of Austrian origin, was Vice President of the Imperial Royal Lieutenancy of Trieste and President of the Administrative Commission of the Margraviate (March) of Istria: therefore he was a high-ranking Austrian official in the Habsburg administration.

During his activity on the island of Lussinpiccolo he was able to testify that the local clergy, all of whom were Croats despite the population being majority Italian, falsified the names and surnames of the inhabitants. He devotes an entire chapter of his work precisely to that topic: Verstümmelung der Familiennamen in den Pfarrmatriken (Deformation of Surnames in the Records). Lasciac noted that the ancient use of Latin and Venetian forms to designate the names and surnames of the locals had been deliberately subverted by Croatian priests in the registry of births, marriages and deaths, Slavicizing the onomastics of the Italians in Lussinpiccolo. Lasciac, who was Imperial Royal Commissioner, required them to restore the original spellings, to which the Croatian nationalists responded by having recourse to the central government in Vienna. Lasciac concludes his narration of this story by saying that the intervention of the parliament in Vienna granted tolerance to this arbitrary alteration of names and surnames: the parish archives and state registries of the Empire were to be transformed into the Slavic form, in contrast to their centuries-old existence in Italian form.

There were numerous public denunciations against the actions of the Slavic clergy, who were carrying out their work with the open support of the Habsburg authorities. In 1877 Francesco Sbisà, an Istrian deputy of the Parliament in Vienna, presented a query denouncing the Slavicization of Italian names and surnames. In 1897 the Istrian linguist Matteo Bartoli mentioned that 20,000 names were changed, especially on the islands of Cherso, Lussino and Veglia, which were almost entirely inhabited by Italians. In 1905, during a meeting of the Istrian Diet, the Istrian deputy and attorney Pietro Ghersa, using extensive documentation derived from extensive research, denounced the government's conniving work of Slavicizing approximately 20,000 Italian names in the Istrian Province. It should be noted that the research of Bartoli and Ghersa took place independently of each other: the former dealt primarily with the islands of the Quarnaro, while the latter instead dealt with the Istrian peninsula. Moreover, these findings took place in two different periods. The figure of 20,000 Slavicized Italian surnames, reported by both men, must therefore be referring to two different areas and therefore represents only a fraction of the total amount of names that were Slavicized in the regions of Istria and the Quarnaro.

It should be noted that the data indicated above, regarding Italian surnames forcibly Slavicized in Istria, are largely incomplete for this region itself, since many others in Istria were modified without being restored to their original form. Additionally, these practices also occurred in other parts of Julian Venetia, in Dalmatia, and in the Trentino and South Tyrol (where they engaged in Germanization).


V. The Glagolitic Liturgy

The most visible work felt by a large part of the Italian population during this operation of Slavicization was the forced introduction of the Slavic liturgical rite in dioceses with an Italian majority.

A brief historical outline is necessary here. At the time of the evangelization of the Slavs, only three languages were approved by the Church of Rome for the liturgy: Hebrew (which was never used), Greek (used only in Catholic areas of Greek language) and Latin (practically universal).

In the Slavic areas of Dalmatia and Croatia the Latin Catholic missionaries not only had to compete with Byzantine missionaries, but also with the Slavic rite after the Croats converted to Catholicism and adhered to the Church of Rome. [2]

The Council of Spalato (925) reinforced the process of latinization of the area, trying to limit the use of Slavic in the liturgy as much as possible, because it seemed to be increasingly connected to the Byzantine tradition. There thus began to delineate a boundary, marked primarily by the circulation of liturgical books in the Latin alphabet and in the Cyrillic alphabet, which progressively marginalized the Glagolitic alphabet, which was designed as an alphabet for all Slavs.

The Patriarchate of Aquileia and all the dioceses of Julian Venetian have always belonged to the Latin rite. The so-called “Slavic rite” (an incorrect term: remember that a Slavic rite has never existed in the Catholic world, it is only found in Orthodoxy: ritus in the liturgical sense and language of use do not necessarily coincide, and are nevertheless distinct concepts) in Catholic areas saw secondary diversities in the various “officia” and “sacramenta”. These were, and are, local variations of the same liturgy, which used Latin as the official liturgical language, and remained in force until the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. [3]

This of course did not prevent, in some areas, the use of rituals in a language other than Latin with a special dispensation, or rather tacit acceptance. The Slavic population of the Balkans was of very low culture, barely literate, so that even the clergy (the lower clergy, rural priests) sometimes did not know Latin: it was, to be blunt, a phenomenon induced by the ignorance of the clergy (I apologize, but that is the truth), which was tolerated by the episcopal authorities, who followed the Latin rite. In the case of the Croatian area this phenomenon is called glagolism, however it only existed in a very small part of the territories of Julian Venetia.

To assess the attitude of the Church of Rome towards this, it is sufficient to recall what happened in the nineteenth century, when Croatian nationalists demanded the reintroduction of glagolism (which had virtually disappeared) in the area of Julian Venetia. This was opposed, albeit for different reasons, by the Roman Curia, by the scholars of ecclesiastical history, and by the people themselves. The Papal Curia of Leo XIII and Pius X called upon the supporters of Glagolitic to return to the Latin rite; the popes mistrusted them and opposed their desire to “reintroduce” such rites into a land where it had never been practiced.

Historians—and it is enough to recall the priest Giovanni Pesante, the Istrian historian Bernardo Benussi, the illustrious scholar Francesco Salata and the Quarnerine professor Melchiade Budinich—demonstrated the scarcity of the Glagolitic phenomenon and its exceptionality, which in fact was merely tolerated alongside—and subordinated to—the use of Latin. In any case, the Glagolitic alphabet, at least before the twentieth century, was limited only to a few areas with a Croatian population, and only in certain periods. Suffice to say that the oldest “Old Slavic” document in Istria, the “Razvod Istarski”, was compiled by two Glagolitic priests in the sixteenth century, while the arrival of Slavic peoples beyond Mount Nevoso occurred between the sixth and eighth century AD.

All other writings of similar nature are of modest value, annotations (and little else) on the margins of missals, some inscriptions and graffiti in a few churches in the countryside, besides a few illegitimate wills and parish registers, only for very brief periods and in isolated villages of an extremely bounded range. To give an idea of how scarce the presence of the Glagolitic liturgy was, suffice to say that in 1650 the then very vast Diocese of Trieste saw in its entire diocese just two tiny parishes that practiced it, only in a small area around Pinguente (the two small villages of Draguch and Sovignaco). [4]

Despite the opposition of the Italian population of Julian Venetia and the distrust of the Vatican itself, the Roman liturgy in the Slavic language (instead of Latin) ended up being introduced under the converging pressure of the Habsburgs and the Slavic clergy. The Empire was interested in defending the Catholic liturgy in the Slavic language as a means of Slavicization even on the religious level. And thanks to its close and traditional friendship with the Vatican, exacerbated by the “Roman Question”, they were able to exert pressure on the pontiffs into allowing the reintroduction of a liturgical form that had been extinct since the beginning of the eighteenth century and which had existed only in a very few places.

The diffusion of the Slavic liturgy, which was accompanied also by sermons, songs, etc. in the Slovenian and Croatian languages, was used by these nationalists and enemies of Italy to forcibly Slavicize the Italian population. The Glagolitic cult was not only reintroduced, but was also imposed in areas where it had never been used and where the inhabitants were overwhelmingly majority Italian. The situation was particularly regrettable in Istria, a land in which this experiment was widely extended and where Italians were often both patriotic and Catholic.

The discontent was naturally very strong among the population, who often preferred to stay home rather than attend religious services in the Glagolitic rite. Many examples can be given. In 1888 a Slovenian priest from Carniola forcibly introduced the Slavonic rite into a church in Pola, where it had never been celebrated before, arousing the indignation of the Italians and even a good number of Slavs among the faithful. When the Latin rite was restored, Slavic nationalist newspapers unleashed a rampage against the bishop of Parenzo.

The island of Neresine was the scene of repeated attempts at religious Slavicization, in contrast to Catholic orthodoxy, in contrast to the existing customs, and contrary to the expressed will of the inhabitants. A Croatian friar named Smolje demanded to celebrate mass in Glagolitic in the parish church of Neresine on September 22, 1895, resulting in all the parishioners abandoning the ceremony and forming a serious insurrection. This same priest demanded to impart baptism in Croatian, so he could Slavicize the names, and refused to do so in Latin even when directly requested by the child's father. The Superior of the Franciscan convent of Neresine, Luciano Lettich, demanded to impose the Croatian language at the burial ceremony of the spouses Antonio and Nicolina Sigovich, causing several of the relatives and other faithful to voluntary abandon the ceremony. Another episode of the many we could cite, happened on the second Sunday of April in 1906, a Croatian friar insisted on celebrating the Glagolitic rite in the church of San Francesco in Cherso, an island of purely Italian history and culture. The faithful, in the face of this celebration, which seemed to them like nationalistic propaganda, left the religious building en masse, leaving only the Croatian friar.

After these and other similar events, the inhabitants of Neresine — and other areas threatened with forced Slavicization (Ossero, Cherso, Lussinpiccolo) — appealed unsuccessfully to the bishop of Veglia, Anton Mahnich. After their appeals were rejected by the Slavic prelate, they decided to appeal directly to Rome. The severity of these reported events caused Pius X to intervene, removing Mahnic from his office as bishop. Even after this, the Vatican had to again directly intervene to denounce and condemn both the liturgical abuse of the use of the Glagolitic rite, as well as the support the Slavic priests were giving to Slovenian and Croatian nationalism, as happened for example on June 17, 1905, when the Cardinal Secretary of State, by order of Pope Pius X, sent a stern letter to the Minister General of the Franciscan Friars Minor with strict orders to energetically intervene and put an end to the behavior of Croatian Franciscans in Dalmatia who were seeking to introduce Croatian into the liturgy.

The Catholic Church itself did not at all welcome the pretenses of the Slovenian and Croatian nationalists and their attempts to restore the Glagolitic rite, both for strict liturgical reasons, and because often times such a request came from pan-slavists with an overt sympathy for Eastern Orthodoxy. The Slavic nationalist movements in Slovenia and Croatia were able to count on funding coming from very distant regions all over the Habsburg Empire and even from Russia itself, and also from supposedly Catholic clergymen who cared more about their nationality than about the faith they professed. An example, certainly extreme but still significant, was a small local schism, which involved the village of Ricmanje (San Giuseppe della Chiusa) in the Diocese of Trieste and Capodistria. The local priest, Monsignor Požar, asked permission to introduce the Glagolitic missal. His request having been rejected, the situation ended up turning into a real schism, with the defection of Ricmanje to Eastern Orthodoxy.

In conclusion and in summary, glagolism resurfaced after 1848 and was even admitted into Italian dioceses where the liturgical innovation was imposed by Slavic nationalists who held ecclesiastical offices, which deeply hurt both the national and religious feelings of Italian Catholics, who were forced to embrace foreign rites of dubious conformity with Catholicism.


VI. Habsburg Caesaropapism: Oppression of the Church and Hostility Towards Italy

The ecclesiastical policy of the Habsburg Empire was well summarized by Ugo Mioni, a priest, historian and journalist born in Trieste in 1870:

“The Habsburgs are always equal. Caesaropapism is inherent to them; instead of occupying themselves with the vital interests of their states, they always have to bother the Church. They appear as Catholics externally, but try to insert themselves into the Church's affairs; they pose as guardians, but want to keep the Church chained and yoked to the wagon of the State. It doesn't matter if the chains are made of gold; they are still chains, and always weigh much more than those of iron. It is better to have an open persecution than to have caesaropapism and a state protection which seeks to exercise power over the Church.” [5]

This same judgment had already been articulated by, among others, Geremia Bonomelli, Bishop of Cremona, who had this to say about the Habsburg's ecclesiastical policy: “They were guards who imposed gold chains; gold chains, it is true, but they were chains nonetheless.”

In essence, the Habsburg Empire claimed to be the “protector” of the Church. In this way, however, they were able to subordinate certain ecclesiastical institutions to the will and impositions of their political power. Emperor Joseph II, who went so far as to dictate how many candles were to be lit in churches, and who gave his name to the heretical caesaropapistic religious policy known as Josephism, is the most well-known representative of the habitual policy of Habsburg Vienna. During the Risorgimento, the Habsburg authorities did not hesitate at all to persecute and murder Italian clergy because they were patriots. According to the same imperial officials, the clergy of Lombardy-Venetia had patriotic ideas. For example, Baron von Aichelberg wrote:

“Day by day, almost hour by hour, the revolution was gaining ground in all provinces... The priests behaved worse than the others, demonstrating with incredible insolence that they were at the head of the revolutionary movement: they are most responsible for the incitement and influence on the lower classes, especially the peasantry. … The rich are like beggars, the bishop just as well is like the most horrible monkey, all carry the Italian cockade.” [6]

For this reason, many priests were murdered and imprisoned during the repression of Radetzky. The most famous case (not the only one!) was that of Don Enrico Tazzoli, who was tortured by the imperial police, ritually deconsecrated (on special order of Pius IX, in response to pressure from the Habsburg imperial government, which was done by scraping away the skin on his fingers), hanged in Belfiore and finally buried in unconsecrated ground. During the First World War, the Empire did not hesitate to deport many priests from Trentino to concentration camps (lager), while Monsignor Celestino Endrici, the Archbishop of Trento, was imprisoned in the fortress of Heiligenkreuz.

In addition to these acts of persecution, Habsburg ecclesiastical policy was usually hostile to Italians since 1848. The Emperor saw to it that in the episcopal sees in Julian Venetia, a region with an Italian majority, Slavic bishops were appointed, all of them ardent nationalists who invited a large number of Slovenian and Croatian priests from the hinterland in order to Slavicize the local churches. These bishops imposed radical changes in the local liturgy, adopting “Glagolitic”, which involved the use of Church Slavonic, and sometimes even advocating such decisively pro-Orthodox ideas such as schism from Rome: this, however, did nothing to alter Imperial policy. In Trentino-Alto Adige, the supposedly “Catholic” Empire permitted the activity of pan-Germanist associations which had anti-Catholic and Protestant tendencies (such as the Tiroler Volksbund), causing the reaction and the indignation of the Bishop of Trento, Celestine Endrici, and also the Catholic politicians of Trentino, including Alcide De Gasperi, who condemned the appearance of such anti-Italian and anti-Catholic policies (for example, an editorial in the Voce cattolica on February 1, 1906 said: “we must defend ourselves against those who undermine the Italian character of our land”).

In fact, many Slavs and many South Tyroleans believed there was a strong connection between Italianity and Catholicism in light of historical ties (Catholicism is inconceivable without Roman heritage), therefore hostility towards Italy as a nation also took on the aspect of hostility towards the Church of Rome.

The anti-Italian alliance between the Habsburg Imperial power and the Yugoslav nationalists manifested itself most clearly in the forced Slavicization of institutions, rites, and activities of the Catholic Church in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia, resulting in a very serious situation in which Catholic ecclesiastical institutions were manipulated and used by the Habsburg state for its own ends.


References

1. cf. Moritsch A., “Der Austroslawismus. Ein verfrühtes Konzeptzur politischen Neugestaltung Mitteleuropas”, Vienna 1996.

2. M. Lacko, “I Concili di Spalato e la liturgia slava”, in A. Matanić (editor), Vita religiosa, morale e sociale ed i concili di Split (Spalato) dei sec. X-XI. Atti del Symposium internazionale di storia ecclesiastica, Split, 26-30 settembre 1978, Padua 1982, pp. 443-482.

3. Jedin (editor), Storia della Chiesa, volume IV, 1978; M. Uhlirz, Jahrbücher des deutschen reiches unter Otto II und Otto III, Berlin 1954; H. Ludat, Slaven und Deutsche im Mittelalter, Cologne-Vienna 1982; M. Gallina, Potere e società a Bisanzio, Turin 1995, pp. 167-1740.

4. cf. Vittorio Fragiacomo, “La liturgia glagolitica in Istria”, Pagine Istriane, gennaio-giugno 1986, Rivista trimestrale di cultura fondata a Capodistria nel 1903 (Genova, 1986), p. 49-51; J. Martinic, “Glagolitische Gesànge Mitteldalmatiens”, Regensburg 1981.

5. Ugo Mioni, Pio VI: il pellegrino apostolico e il suo tempo, Alba, Pia Societa San Paolo, 1933, p. 60.

6. Sked, Le armate, cit., pp. 116-117.