Showing posts with label Italy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Italy. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 15, 2013


Italy’s Fiasco
The Ethiopian war as a Tar baby
Part II
The Cost of the War
Mountains of Ethiopia

In a previous essay I discussed the Italian-Ethiopian war of 1935-1941 and further discussed the question of whether or not the negative reaction of Britain and France drove Mussolini into Hitler’s arms. This is so because many modern commentators state that the economic boycott along with other measures destroyed Mussolini’s willingness to be part of alliance aimed at thwarting Hitler and in fact forced him to be Hitler’s ally. This is quite simply nonsense. Mussolini was not “forced” to be Hitler’s ally by any stretch of reality or imagination. He became Hitler’s ally because of his own ambitions were blocked by France and Britain.1

Here I will discuss the cost of the Ethiopian war for Italy. For the bottom line is that the Ethiopian war cost far more than Mussolini anticipated and played a very large role in preventing Italy from becoming a true great power.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Italy’s Fiasco
The Ethiopian war as a Tar baby
Part I
Why Mussolini drew closer to Hitler and the Ethiopian Crisis

Ethiopia

In 1935 Mussolini, the biggest disaster to hit Italy in the Twentieth century invaded Ethiopia. By May of 1936 his armies had conquered the country and entered the capital Addis Ababa. Mussolini had successfully flouted the League of Nations and its sanctions and had emerged successful from his war.

Monday, November 23, 2009

The Syllabus of Errors


Pius IX
 
In 1864 Pope Pius IX published as an appendix to his Papal Encyclical Quanta Cura a Syllabus listing the errors of the Modern Age.1 It helped propel the Papacy into an age of reaction and gave the forces that opposed the Catholic Church enormous ammunition in their battle against it.

Now in all fairness to Pius IX he had stated out as a relatively Liberal Pope but his treatment during the Revolutions of 1848-49 C.E., had soured his disposition towards the modern world. During it he had been forced to flee when revolutionaries seized control of Rome. He had not been very well treated. Further the aim of the revolutionaries was to divest the papacy of the Papal States, and create a secular united Italy. The Pope was not congenial to the idea of losing the Papal States and the fact that a great many of the Liberals and Nationalists who wanted a secular united Italy were very anti-clerical did not help.2

When the Pope was restored by French troops in 1849 he inaugurated a period of reaction. The various liberal measures that had characterized the beginning of his reign were not reinstated instead the autocratic, features of the Papal States reinforced and so was clerical domination. The result was that Papal rule in the Papal States became deeply unpopular. Everything from censorship, to arbitrary Police power was significantly increased. In many respects the Papal States, aside from being poorly governed, were a Police state; riddled with informers and Secret Police agents.3

It was only the presence of French troops that kept the Papal States from collapsing due to internal tensions. It was agreed that so long as French troops remained any attempt to overthrow the Papacy would fail. It is only fair to mention that there were violent revolutionaries who desired to overthrow the Papal States and make Rome the Capital of a United Italy.4

When the great Italian Diplomat Cavour of Piedmont acting for the King of Sardinia, (who was also ruler of Piedmont), managed to with the aid of France to acquire the greater part of Italy in the years 1858-1861. This included most of the Papal States which simply collapsed into the hands of Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia who thereby became King of Italy.5

This thoroughly enraged Pius IX who believed that a vast Satanic conspiracy was out to destroy the Church and that the Church needed in order to pursue its functions the temporal domination of the Papal States. The fact that the inhabitants of the Papal states were heartedly sick of incompetent, authoritarian, clerical rule was of course irrelevant to him. With French troops still in Rome the Pope was able to keep control of the area around Rome and continue the rule of the clerics.6

Feeling that the world was closing in on the Church and that the forces of darkness were gathering to smother the Church he felt the need for a counterblast as well as demanding that the conquered portions of the Papal states be handed back to him. Pius IX thus absolutely refused to negotiate at all.7

An example of Pius’ intransigence to say nothing of it being an example of intrinsic evil, was the case of Edgardo Mortara. Edgardo Mortara was a young Jewish boy who had been secretly baptised by a Christian servant in the first two years of his life. Later when this was revealed, Papal Police kidnapped the child took him to Rome, refused to return the child to his parents and proceeded to brainwash the young boy into becoming a fervent Catholic. All this with Pius IX strong supported. During this whole disgraceful affair Pius IX whined continually; viewing himself as the victim. Sadly Edgardo Mortara was far from the only example of this type of wickedness. Not surprisingly this generated a great deal of bad publicity.8

That Italian nationalists wanted to unify Italy and make Rome the capital of Italy was not a surprise that Pius IX refused to recognize that many of these Italian Nationalists were sincere Catholics perfectly willing to negotiate generous terms with the Papacy was ignored by Pius IX to him they were all servants of Satan out to destroy the Church.9

It was in this most inauspicious circumstance that in 1864 along with the Encyclical Quanta Cura the so-called Syllabus of Errors was attached to it and also released. Consisting of quotations of previous Papal documents it is basically a cry of impotent rage and anger at the modern world and much of it is even in mid-nineteenth century terms both flaky and repellent.

The following is the complete Syllabus of Errors with my commentary on some of the more absurd bits.
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS10
Pope Pius IX

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
Why Pius IX is wasting his time condemning Pantheism, a doctrine of then as now of only moderate appeal is beyond me.
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.—Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.—Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.—Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
Pius IX fails to recognize that he as just condemned a great many Catholic theologians who thought the truths of Christianity were perfectly in tune with human reason.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.—Ibid.
Since Humans are imperfect I fail to see how their interpretation of divine revelation could be anything but imperfect.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man.—Ibid.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.
An attack on the then emerging discipline of Biblical criticism. And of course a demand that Catholics ignore it and refuse to have anything to do with it.
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.—Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.—Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.—Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.
Not exactly well phrased. This of course is actually a reference to Catholic Theologians and Philosophers having to submit themselves to the authority of the Catholic hierarchy.
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.—Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
An attack on the idea that Philosophers and others have freedom of expression.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.—Ibid.
Well one could give the example of Galileo here.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.—Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation.—Ibid.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
One of Pius IX’s great bugaboos, freedom of religion. To Pius a great and terrible evil. So he hysterically denounced freedom of religion and even worst the terrible refusal of states to make life difficult for non-Catholics.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Since of course salvation can only be found in the Catholic Church any attempt to even suggest that salvation may be attained outside it is of course both wicked and evil.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
Of course Protestantism is the great heresy of which no-compromise or accommodation can ever be made with.
IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.
Since both Socialism and Communism threatened the temporal authority, (wealth and power) of the church they are both to be condemned. Organizations that promote those ideas, including Liberal-Catholicism are also condemned. The fear of higher Biblical criticism is also obvious.
V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS
19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.—Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, etc.
Interestingly this is not a traditional Catholic belief but is in fact contrary to centuries of practice whereby the Church agreed to having her power limited by allowing the state to at least have some say in national church affairs. The outstanding example of this was the French Church which traditionally had an enormous amount of independence from Rome and was to a large extent run by the French government.11
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.—Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
The desire of Pius IX to impose Catholicism is made quite clear.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.
Free thought is wicked especially if exercised by Catholics.

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
Well in the Middle Ages and early modern times a great many Catholic Theologians etc., would have fully agreed with this point of view.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
No doubt trying to justify the Police state that was the Papal States at this time.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit.—Ibid.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government.—Ibid.
The above are a whole list of complaints that the Church is not subject to the state and that its authority over temporal matters is strictly limited.
30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
Pius IX lets the cat out of the bag. The Church is superior to the state. Of course Pius IX is wrong and those commentators who stated that the immunity of clerical persons from Civil law originated in Civil law itself were right. Thus we see the beginning of the idea that the Church is not subject to the state but the state should be in many respects subject to the Church.
31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government.—Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864.
Again the Church is not subject to the state.

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.—Ibid.
Actually this is a truism. It was certainly doctrine in the later Middle Ages that General Councils of the Church could both depose and make Popes and they did so on a number of occasions.
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts.—Ibid.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.—Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Here Pius IX quarrels with history. The idea that the Catholic Church contributed nothing to the division of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is simply special pleading.
VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851
Roughly translated. The state can only do things that benefit the Church not anything that impedes it, has defined by Pius IX.
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.—Ibid.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.—Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.
Here is a legitimate call for complaint. It was true that various powers were unilaterally rescinding agreements that had given the Church many rights over education etc. This would of course be infuriating. Of course a lot of it was because these powers and privileges were in favour of Catholicism and not given to any other faith and thus violated the Liberal idea of neutrality in matters of religion.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.—Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.—Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.
Public education by the state in a faith neutral manner is of course wicked; public education must continue to be the monopoly of the Church.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.—Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
Again Pius IX longs for those days in the Middle Ages when some Popes were able to dictate to Kings. It of interest that although the Church was to be free of the authority of the state, the state was not to be free of the authority of the Church.
VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.—Ibid.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.—Ibid.; Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.—Ibid.
So I guess democracy is a bad idea.

61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed.—Allocution "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860.
What Pius IX means is non intervention in terms of religion. From his point of view intervention in favour of Catholicism is always mandated and against other religions.
63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."
How Pius IX squares this with his condemnation of state interference in Church affairs is not clear. Although it is obvious it is a swipe at the revolutionaries of 1848.
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.—Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.
This is a swipe at those states which abrogated agreements with the Vatican.
VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated.—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone.—Ibid.

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority.—Ibid.; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
This is again a truism. Of course the Church granted “Divorces” all the time it simply called them annulments.

68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
Again a simple truism going back to the Roman Empire.

69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State.—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power.—Ibid.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void.—Ibid.

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded.—Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
Pius IX clearly wants Marriage to be under the control of the Church. This is of course nonsense. That marriage is a civil contract sanctified by the state is a simple truism. The sacrament of marriage as defined by the Church is a different thing. It is clear that Pius IX wanted the abolition of Civil Marriage.
IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.—"Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Another truism.

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.—Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850.

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
Pius IX really did abominate religious tolerance. But then the religious tolerance of the Papal states was pretty minimal. Again what he longed for was a return to the theocratic states of the Middle Ages complete with State Churches and the suppression of contrary belief.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.
What can one say to such obscurantism?

The following paragraphs, although often appended to The Syllabus, actually derive from the encyclical of 21 November 1873, Etsi multa (On the Church in Italy, Germany, and Switzerland), by the same Holy Father, Pope Pius IX.
The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation.... The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God's (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar's, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights....
.... Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.
This screed is of interest in indicating the mindset of Pius IX and his advisors. Especially notable is the mention of Masons, who in the demonology of 19th century Catholicism are leading the forces of darkness against the Church. As for the double order of things it is clear that Pius IX regards the Order of the Church as clearly superior to the order of “Caesar”. The desire to subordinate the state to the Church is clear and obvious.
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government....

But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.
What Pius IX is referring to here is the so-called Kultur-Kampf waged by Bismarck against the Church. This is perhaps the only genuine example of real persecution and a attack on the Church that can be characterized as unfair in the entire document.12

The aftermath of all this was not pretty. The Syllabus was greeted with dismay by much of Europe and even much Catholic opinion was shocked. Pius IX once again displayed his remarkable talent for shooting himself in the foot. He would later on denounce Democracy, elections, freedom of the press etc., etc., thus cementing his reputation as a Medieval theocrat and a through reactionary. He would meditate endlessly about how persecuted he was and whine about his sufferings.

Like so many fanatics Pius IX demanded that practitioners of the faith he supported be given freedom to practice their faith; in this case Catholicism. However he totally denied that other faiths must have that freedom also. Pius IX just never saw that what he thought of as “error” had the right to be exercised. It was wrong in his eyes to persecute the Catholic Church but it was right for the Catholic Church to persecute others.

In 1870 at the first Lateran Council the doctrine of Papal Infallibility would be proclaimed. It was of course a futile gesture of defiance against the modern world. The attempt to introduce it generated a good deal of opposition among the Bishops at the conference who regarded it as at once inexpedient and heretical. Pius IX was however adamant to scream defiance at the world.13

Amazingly the version of infallibility that was past was a considerably watered down version of what Pius IX wanted. Pius IX’s monomania was quite large. The opposition was able to do that much but even so it was not enough.14

That this doctrine was in defiance of both Church History and previous Church doctrine is manifest. The idea that a Pope like Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, would be infallible is just too ludicrous for words. It was all part of Pius IX’s drive to complete the transformation of the Papacy into an absolute monarchy.

The reaction of the rest of the world was one of dismay and ridicule. Even most of the Catholic powers were not pleased and viewed this has a threat to the autonomy of their national churches. Napoleon III who was in charge of the French troops protecting Papal domination in Rome was seriously annoyed. It was ignored as much as possible.15

Of course 1870 witnessed retribution for Pius IX’s foolishness. The Franco-Prussian war broke out and the French withdrew their troops from Rome. The Italians marched in and took the city without much resistance amid scenes of wild popular rejoicing. The new government proceeded to introduce freedom of the press, religion and to dismantle the Secret Police and other acts that Pius IX found ungodly. 16

Pius IX spent the last years of his life, (he lived until 1878), whining about his imprisonment, intriguing for the return of the Papal states complete with secret police, and making life as difficult as possible for the new Italian government. He was described as “The Prisoner of the Vatican” in the propaganda feed to credulous Catholics. Pius IX absolutely refused to negotiate he wanted at a minimum the return of the Papal states. That the inhabitants of the former Papal states most definitely did NOT want a return to Papal rule was considered by Pius IX of no relevance.17

Pius IX lived in a most comfortable “prison”, but then this “prison” was largely self inflicted.

Pius IX died in 1878 thereby ending one of the most disastrous Papacies ever. Although a pious and charming man and very likable, he was a disaster for the Catholic Church and his legacy unfortunately lives on.


Papal States

1. De Rosa, Peter, Vicars of Christ, Bantam Press, New York, 1988, p. 244.

2. Kertzer, David I., Prisoner of the Vatican, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 2004, pp. 9-21, De Rosa, pp. 128-136, Wills, Gary, Papal Sin, Image Books, Toronto, 2000, pp. 40-45.

3. IBID, De Rosa.

4. Kertzer, pp. 9-21.

5. IBID, Note 3.

6. De Rosa, pp. 131-132.

7. Kertzer, pp. 65-67.

8. Wills, pp. 41-44, De Rosa, p. 195.

9. Kertzer, pp. 59-72, De Rosa, pp. 131-132.

10. All quotes from the Syllabus of Errors, EWTN, Here.

11. Goubert, Pierre, Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen, Vintage Books, 1970, pp. 151-155.

12. Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866-1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 69-78.

13. Wills, pp. 246-259, Kertzer, pp. 22-32, De Rosa, pp. 133-136.

14. IBID.

15. De Rosa, pp. 135-136, Kertzer, p. 32.

16. De Rosa, pp. 131-132, Kertzer, pp. 59-72.

17. De Rosa, p. 132, Wills, pp, 239-244, Kertzer, pp. 100-108.

Pierre Cloutier

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Treaty of Wichale / Uccialli

On the second of May 1889 Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia signed a treaty of assistance with Italy with the Italian Diplomat Count Pietro Antonelli. The treaty defined the boundary of the Italian colony of Eritrea and the Ethiopian Empire. It also set the stage for the tragic intermeshing of Ethiopia and Italy well into the twentieth century.
Menelik II

The treaty was one of mutual assistance and exchange. Italy agreed to provide Menelik II with a certain quantity of modern arms and financial assistance and support for Menelik II’s claim to be Emperor, in exchange Menelik II agreed to put aside Ethiopia’s claim to the port of Massawa and to accept expanded borders for the Italian colony of Eritrea. In the years before Menelik II had been an ally of Italy and had in exchange for assistance been aiding them against Italy’s enemy in Ethiopia Emperor Yohannes IV.1

Yohannes IV had been King of Tigre and had made himself Emperor of Ethiopia. In 1875 a force of Egyptian soldiers who were encroaching into the Highlands of Ethiopia were destroyed at Gundet. The following year a much larger Egyptian force was badly defeated at Gura. The remnants of the army retreated to Massawa on the coast. The Egyptians eventually transferred the port of Massawa to the Italians. Yohannes IV was furious and this lead to a series of conflicts and small battles climaxing in the destruction of an Italian force of 500 men at Dogli on January 25, 1887. During all of this Yohannes IV was engaged in a off again on again Struggle with Menelik II, then King of Shoa, who also claimed the imperial crown. Yohannes eventually recognized Menelik II as his successor but Menelik continued to intrigue against him.2

During all of these relations with the Dervish Mahdi regime of the Sudan changed from bad to worst with a border war starting. In the escalating war the Dervish forces sacked the Ethiopian city of Gondor. Yohannes IV called off his intermittent struggle with the Italians and attacked the Dervishes at Gallabat / Metemma on March 9, 1889. In the ensuing violent but generally inconclusive battle Yohannes IV was killed at the moment of victory and his army retreated rendering the battle inconclusive.3

After this Menelik II seized the chance to claim the Imperial throne and assume the title Negus Nagasti meaning King of Kings or Emperor. Because his claim was not universally accepted in Ethiopia and to reward the Italians for their help in his struggle with Yohannes IV he agreed to Italian expansion in the north. The fact that such expansion was at the expense of Tigre ruled now by Yohannes IV’s illegitimate son Mangasha who refused to accept Menelik II's imperial title, was simply fine with him.4

That is why shortly after Yohannes IV's death Menelik negotiated and signed the Treaty of Wichale.

Map illustrating Boundary created by Treaty of Wichale

Count Antonelli had been over the years a frequent visitor / resident at the court of Menelik II and had negotiated several agreements with Menelik II previously. It appears that before Count Antonelli arrived to negotiate with Menelik II he had drafts of a possible treaty. Now the main interest of the treaty is not the usual mutual interest clauses or the clauses regarding commerce or the import of arms but two particular clauses. Article 3 which gave Italy a firm foothold in the highlands, including the town of Asmara and article 17. Article 17 was the nightmare. In it Menelik II, in the Italian version, consented to using the Italian government for all his dealings with the other powers. The Amharic version stated that Menelik II may use the Italian government for his dealing with the other powers.5 In the Amharic version the Article 17 goes has follows:

Article 17, in Amharic
For whatever needs the Emperor of Ethiopia may have vis-a-vis European potentatres, he can avail himself of the liason services of the Italian governement.6
The Italian wording replaces "he can avail himself of" with "he consents to use".7 There can be little doubt that since it is now known that Antonelli came to his negotiations with Menelik II with a draft treaty with a clause similar to the clause in the Italian version of the treaty, and given that Antonelli was familiar enough with Amharic to know what the clause meant in that language to indicate what can only be called conscious, deliberate deception.8

After signing the treaty Menelik sent Dejatch Maconnen back with Antonelli to Rome for further negotiations. On October 1, 1889 a modification of the Treaty of Wichale was signed in Rome between Crispi, the Italian Prime Minster and Maconnen which modified the original treaty in that it changed the boundary agreements to allow the boundary to be drawn at de facto possession of land, which infuriated Menelik II when he found out, and to allow Menelik II to borrow four million lire with the Italian government guaranteeing the loan with the customs revenue of the province of Harrar passing to Italy should Menelik II fail to pay the interest. One half of the loan would be paid in silver the other half would be in a Italian bank for purchases that Menelik would wish to make in Europe.9

Maconnen left Italy on December 4, 1889. On October 11, 1889 Italy informed other European powers through formal diplomatic channels of her protectorate over Ethiopia and used as evidence article 17 of the Treaty of Wichale. Most of the European powers accepted the alleged Italian protectorate.10

When in December 1889 Antonelli returned with Maconnen from Italy for further negotiations. Menelik II He did not inform Menelik II about the "protectorate", This was even after Crispi the Italian Prime-Minister had taken Antonelli to task for Menelik II having violated Article 17 (by sending a letter to the powers announcing his Coronation, for more see below), in February 1890. Menelik did not discover the protectorate until c. August 1890 and at the time he was already angry with the Italians over the fact that they had advanced well beyond the boundaries agreed too at the Treaty of Wichale. After signing the Treaty of Wichale and Menelik II’s coronation has Emperor he had sent letters to the various European powers announcing his accession to the throne. When the letters sent in reply from the European powers were translated Menelik II became quietly livid with rage. The Italian representative Salimbeni who was unaware of the differences between the two versions of the treaty, was on the receiving end of Menelik II’s anger. The letter from Queen Victoria especially made Menelik II angry. In it Queen Victoria replied to the letter in which Menelik II had informed the British of his coronation and of his desire to send representatives to both France and Britain. In her letter Queen Victoria told him that given article 17 in the Treaty of Wichale he should make all such approaches only through the Italian government.11

The resulting diplomatic wrangle was characterized by various Italian attempts to get Menelik II to accept the protectorate and Menelik II and his truly formidable Empress Taitu making it very clear that they would not accept the protectorate that had been deceptively foisted on them.

Empress Taitu

Antonelli attempted to blame Menelik II’s interpreter. There, however, can be no doubt that Menelik II never understood the clause to ever mean what the Italian version said and it is virtually certain that if he had understood it to mean that that he would ever have agreed to such an arrangement. Further it seems virtually certain that Antonelli knew enough Amharic to know that the Italian and Amharic versions were different.12

Upon learning the contents of Italian version of the Treaty of Wichale the Empress Taitu is supposed to have told Menelik II
How is it that Emperor Yohannes never gave up a handful of our soil, fought the Italians and the Egyptians for it, even died for it, and you, with him for an example, want to sell your country! What will history say of you? 13
Already the Italians had violated the Treaty of Wichale by advancing beyond the boundaries agreed to in that treaty. The deception indicated by article 17 convinced Menelik II that the Italians were not to be trusted.14

The resulting diplomatic rumble lasted for years. Although most European powers accepted the alleged protectorate, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire did not. And Menelik II kept up a relentless diplomatic campaign and at the same time made every effort to militarily strengthen his kingdom.15

On September 27th, 1890 Menelik II wrote to Umberto the king of Italy to inform him that Ethiopia was no protectorate of Italy in it Menelik II said:
While talking to Count Antonelli at the time when the treaty was being brought to a conclusion, I questioned him with great seriousness, and he answered me in the following manner: ‘If it suits your convenience, you can employe us as your intermediaries; if not, you are free not to do so.’ I said to him: ‘If it is merely a question of friendship why should I emloy anyone but you in my external negotiations?’ I accepted at that time no obligatory agreement and I am not a man to accept it, nor could you advise me to do so”16
A rather tiresome series of negotiations, conducted with much verbal fighting, then proceeded to happen. Count Antonelli returned to Ethiopia and in early 1891 was negotiating in earnest with Menelik II basically to do anything to get Menelik II to agree to the protectorate. This included giving way on the frontier issue. 17

What is hilarious about the whole thing is that Antonelli thought he had got Menelik II to agree to the protectorate and signed an Italian and Amharic version of the new treaty. Count Antonelli then discovered to his absolute horror that the Amharic version of the treaty entirely abrogated the protectorate. When Antonelli confronted Menelik II about this Menelik II attributed the mistake to Antonelli’s interpreter and refused to discuss the issue further. Antonelli then repudiated the new treaty. 18

Since Antonelli had throughout this negotiations talked about how embarrassing it would be for Italy to disallow the protectorate, how injurious it would be to the honour of Italy etc. It is frankly likely that Menelik II and /or his Empress Taitu decided to teach Antonelli a lesson and see how he Antonelli liked having the same trick pulled on him. If the evidence we have is anything to go on Antonelli seemed to have been blissfully unaware of this and instead was self righteously upset and ripped up the treaty in front of Menelik II. I guess its all right to pull this sort of trick on a so-called “uncivilized savage”, but utterly unacceptable if the “uncivilized savage” pulls the same stunt on you. Ah the pleasures of hypocrisy.19

Amazingly during all this the Italians deliberately ignored article 19 of the Treaty of Wichale which stated:
The Treaty shall be written in duplicate in Amharic / (Ethiopic) and in Italian languages and both have equal validity and legal force.20
In that case then Menelik was being perfectly accurate when he stated that given the conflicting versions article 19 made the Italian and Ethiopian versions of Article 17 null and void and therfore abrogated the protectorate.21

The Italian response to all this was to try to create an alliance with Mangasha, the king of Tigre, and to try to buy and or bribe Menelik II. Basically The Italians tried to use the bank loan that Menelik II had created and the two million cartridges that Menelik II had bought with it. Menelik II in the meantime was making every effort to pay off the Italians so he would be under no obligation to them whatsoever. The attempt to bribe Menelik II with cartridges he had purchased failed. On February 27, 1893 shortly after he had received the cartridges Menelik II formally denounced the Treaty of Wichale in its entirety.22

The steady deterioration of relations between Menelik II and the Italians continued until war happened. Menelik II proved to be a first class diplomat and the Italians continued to underestimate him. For example the Italians through a series of foolish moves turned Mangasha of Tigre into their enemy. When Menelik II, in 1893, formally abrogated the Treaty of Wichale he relied on Article 16 which allowed either side to amend the Treaty five or more years after the signing if that side seeking the admendment gave one years notice of the admendment sought. Even assuming that the Italian reading of Article 17 was correct it would only last for 5 years if the Ethiopians gave such notice. Needless to say the Italians made no such admission, but acted like the alleged protectorate was forever. Gradually Menelik was able to establish his undisputed rule over the divided kingdoms of Ethiopia and to cement profitable economic and military arrangements with various European powers like Russia and France. He was able to purchase even more modern military hardware and also get the services of military advisors from France and Russia. 23

The end of all this was on March 1, 1896 an Italian Army of c. 18,000 men was crushed at Adowa by the Army of Menelik II numbering c. 80,000 including at least 60,000 modern rifles, plentiful ammunition, and 54 pieces of modern artillery. Over 4000 Italians were killed and along with c. 2000 Askari locally raised infantry and 1,428 Italians were wounded. About c. 2000 Italians captured along with a smaller number of Askari.24


Battle of Adowa

A few months later a treaty was signed at Addis Ababa by which Italy recognized the complete independence of Ethiopia. Among elements of Italian society this humiliation left a bitter taste and thirst for revenge. Eventually Italy under Mussolini would plan and carry out a war of conquest against Ethiopia in 1935-1936. The deceptive ease of the military conquest would prove to be a trap that would engulf Italy in a protracted, costly and brutal colonial guerilla war that would end in disaster for Italy in 1940-1941 when with amazing ease Italian rule in Ethiopia collapsed upon the invasion of very small British forces.25

All of this from the attempt to deceive Menelik II, who Antonelli, the deceiver, could not take seriously because he was an African. Sometimes nemesis comes in two steps.
 Battle of Adowa - Ethiopian Painting

1. Rubenson, Sven, The Protectorate Paragraph of the Wichale Treaty, Journal of African History, v. 2 (1964), pp. 243-283, at pp. 243-245, and Pakenham, Thomas, The Scramble for Africa, Avon Books, New York, 1991, pp. 472-473, for an over view of Menelik's foreign policy see Gabre-Selassie, Dejazmach Zewde, Continuity and Discontinuity in Menelik's Foreign Policy, in Ed. Milkias, Paulos, & Metaferia, Getachew, The Battle of Adwa, Algora Pub., New York, 2005, pp. 89-132.

2. Pakenham, pp. 470-473, Gabre-Sellassie, Zewde, Yohannes IV of Ethiopia, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975, pp. 58-75, Erlich, Haggi, Ras Alula and the Scramble for Africa, Red Sea Press Inc., Lawrenceville NJ, 1996, pp. 98-109, Rubenson, Sven, The Survival of Ethiopian Independence, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London, 1976, pp. 290- 291, 316-329.

3. IBID. Pakenham, Berkeley, G. F-H., The Campaign of Adowa and the Rise of Menelik, Negro Universities Press, New York, 1969, (original pub. 1902), pp. 3-5.

4. Berkeley, pp. 17-18, Pakenham, 472.

5. Rubenson, 1964, pp. 249-251, Caulk, Richard, "Between the Jaws of Hyenas": A Diplomatic History of Ethiopia (1876-1896), Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2002, 153-176.

6, Ayle, Negussay, Adowa 1896: Who was Civilized and Who was Savage?, in Milkias, pp. 133-179, p. 145. The Treaty of Wichale is as follows:
1. King Umberto I of Italy and Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia commit themselves to the [Wichale] Treaty and Friendship and Commerce in mutual pursuit of peaceable and friendly realtions for themselves and for succeeding generations.

2. There shall be dipolomatic and consular exchanges between Ethiopia and Italy which shall operate with the immunities and privileges recognized in Europe.
3. Broad boundary delimitation line from Arafali on the Red Sea coast to the Sudan border with Halay, Segeneiti and Asmara falling within Italian Jurisdiction.

4. Debre Bizen monastry within the Italian zone is to remain Ethiopian territory in perpetuuity and to be permanently demilitarized.

5. Ethiopia can import / export merchandise via Massawa by paying 8% port duty.

6. The Emperor can import arms through Massawa free of charge and Italy will provide escort for their safe entry into Ethiopia.

7. There shall be free trade and commericial transit of people between the two countries but no large scale armed crossing of borders.

8. People of each country can live, move and do business in each other's territory in accordance with the respective local laws and customs.

9. When people from one territory become residents in the jurisdiction of another, they will retain their faith and denomination.

10. Disputes among Italian residents or among Ethiopian residents will be adjudicated by a judge they choose and if the dispute is between Ethiopian and Italian residents the case will br adjudicated jointly by Italian and Ethiopian jurists.

11. In the event Italian or Ethiopian residents pass away within the jurisdiction of one or the other government, their property shall be safeguarded until claimed.

12. Residents of one jurisdiction who commit capital crimes within another jurisdiction will be tried in their own national courrts and in accordance with their own laws.

13. The two Governments agree to extradite nationals wanted for capital crimes.

14. The Ethiopian Emperor shall take all measures to combat slave trading in his country.

15. The Treaty willl be in effect throughout Ethiopia.

16. The parties to the Treaty may change or amend the provisions of the Treaty five years after its adop[tion by giving a one-year notice regarding such intent; however, this is applicable to provisions relating to commerce and not to boundaries.

17. For whatever needs the Emperor of Ethiopia may have vis-a-vis European potentates, he can avail himself of the liason services of the Italian government.

18. In the event that there are two bids for goods or services of equal merit or value offerrred by an Italian national and by the national of another country, the Italian offer is to be favored by the Emperor.

19. The Treaty shall be written in duplicate in Amharic / (Ethiopic) and in Italian languages and both shall have equal validity and legal force.

20. For his part Emperor Menelik has hereby signed and affirmed the Treaty in the presence of Italian plenipotentiary Pietro Antonelli, on March 25, 1881 (Ethiopian Calendar) or May 2, 1889 (Gregorian Calendar) at Wichale, Ethiopia, and it shall be ratified in Rome at the earlist convenience.
From Negussay, pp. 144-145.

7. IBID. 147-150, Caulk, pp. 157-160.

8. IBID. Rubenson. pp. 260-265, Caulk, & pp. 194-199, 219-221, 230-233, Rubenson pp. 384-392.

9. Berkeley, pp. 17-22, Caulk, pp. 189-209.

10. IBID. Berkeley, p. 22.

11. IBID. Berkeley, pp. 24-33, Rubenson, 1964, pp. 247-251, 391-392, Caulk, pp. 214-225, Menelik II Website Here.

12. IBID. p. 33, Rubenson, pp. 260-265, 386., see Footnote 8, Caulk p. 252.

13. Caulk, p. 215, Menelik II website.

14. Berkeley, pp. 24-30, Caulk pp. 231-233.

15. Pakenham, 472-475, Caulk, pp. 269-324.

16. Berkeley, quoting Menelik II’s letter p. 33.

17, IBID. p. 32, Caulk, pp. 235-237.

18. IBID. pp. 34-35, Rubenson, p. 251, Caulk, pp. 235-267.

19. IBID. pp. 36-38, Caulk, pp. 243-260.

20, Negussay, p. 145.

21, Rubenson, p. 394.

22, Berkeley, pp. 36-38, Caulk, 235-267.

23. IBID. pp. 51-56, Pakenham, pp. 475-477, Rubenson, 395-397, Caulk, 269-324.

24. Pakenham, p. 484, Parkenham at p. 485 lists Ethiopian casualties as 7,000 dead and 10,000 wounded, Berkeley, 345-346, Berkeley gives Ethiopian casualties as 7,000 killed and 10,000 wounded, Caulk, p. 563-564, gives Italian losses has c. 4,900 dead + 1,000 Askari dead with 1,500 more wounded; all 56 of their guns, 11,000 riflesand c. 2,700 prisoners of which c. 1,900 were Italian and 800 were Askari, on pp. 566-567 Ethiopian losses are given as c. 4,000 dead with 6,000-8,000 wounded, Rubenson, pp. 403, lists the following casualties Italian (includes Askari), 7,000 dead, 1,500 wounded, and c. 3,000 prisoners. A letter dated March 31, 1896 from Yosef Neguse, (Menelik's Interpreter) states casualties has follows, 3,886 dead Ethiopians, 1,785 dead + captured Italians it gives the number of Askari killed or captured as 4,471, From Tafla, Bairu, Ethiopian Records of the Menilek Era, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, , 2000, Doc. 151, pp, 457-464, at 463, Wylde, Augustus B., Modern Abyssinia, Methuen & Co., London, 1901, gives the following figures, 4,000 captured Italians and Askari in equal numbers, 5,000-6,000 Ethiopian dead and c. 8,000 badly wounded of whom c. 25% died at p. 212.

25. Pakenham, p. 486, Berkeley, p. 356, for the disastrous Ethiopian war of 1935-1941, see Sullivan, Brian R., More than Meets the Eye: the Ethiopian War and the Origins of the Second World War, in The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, 2nd Edition, Ed. Martel, Gordon, Routledge, London, 1999, pp. 178-203, by same author, The Italian-Ethiopian War, October 1935-November 1941: Causes, Conduct, and Consequences, in Great Powers and Little wars, Ed. Ion, A. Hamish, & Errington, E.J., Praeger Publishers, Westport CT, 1993, pp. 167-201.

Pierre Cloutier