² Metternich to Count Rudolf Lutzow, the Austrian ambassador at Rome, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv [Vienna]”), Staatskanzlei. Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLVII.

³ Chateaubriand, and anonymous, Journal d'un conclave, edited by Thomas, Louis (Paris: Messein, 1913), p. 65.Google Scholar

⁴ The best account of the inner workings of the conclave is given by Colapietra, Raffaelo in his “II diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829,” Critica Storica, Vol. 1 (1962), pp. 517–541Google Scholar and 636–661, even though the study is weak on international aspects, particularly on the role of Austria, because the author failed to use non-Italian archival sources. Colapietra's article on “Gaetano Moroni nel conclave del 1829,” Rassegna di politico e di storia, 1963, pp. 13–17, is also useful. A good, brief survey can also be found in Schmidlin, Joseph, Histoire des papes de l'époque contemporaine. Vol. II: Léon XII, Pie VIII, el Grégoire XVI, translated by Marchal, Louis (Paris: Vitte, 1940), pp. 139–144Google Scholar. Earlier works, such as Oxilla, Ugo, “Tre conclavi,” Rassegna storica del Risorgimento, Vol. XX (1933), pp. 564–584Google Scholar; and de Montor, Artaud, Histoire du Pape Pie VIII (Paris: Le Clere, 1844), pp. 16–45Google Scholar, are less satisfactory and tend to be marked by both bias and factual error. Cipoletta's, Eugenio Memorie politiche sui conclavi (Milan: Marazzani, 1863)Google Scholar, contains serious errors of fact. For example, the author writes about Pope Leo XII's speaking on his deathbed in 1829 with Cardinal Consalvi, who had died in 1824 (see p. 174). della Gattina's, Ferdinando Petrucelli Histoire diplomatique des conclaves (4 vols., Brussels: Librairie Internationale, 1866), Vol. IV, pp. 366–386Google Scholar, is distorted by anti-Austrian and anti-Papal bias but is useful for the documents it presents from the Italian archives. Bianchi's, Nicomede Storia documentata della diplomazia europea in Italia 1814–1861 (8 vols., Turin: Unione tipografica, 1865–72), Vol. II, pp. 217–222Google Scholar and 422–431, is also biased, but it contains useful Italian documents. Malazampa's, Enrico Pio VIII (Rome: Zanichelli, 1933), pp. 104–109Google Scholar; and Dardano's, Pietro Diario dei conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31, edited by Silvagni, David (Florence: Gazetta, 1879), pp. 28–47Google Scholar, are useful. Moscati's, Ruggero “II governo napoletano e il conclave di Pio VIII,” Rassegna storica del Risorgimento, Vol. XX (1933)Google Scholar, is reliable on Neapolitan policy. Becker's, Jeronimo España y la Santa Sede durante el Sigh XIX (Madrid: Ratés, 1908), pp. 74–77Google Scholar, seems to be the only study on the role of Spain. Pecci's, Odo Fusi La vita del Papa Pio VIII (Rome: Herder, 1965), pp. 175–182Google Scholar, seems concerned with concealing events that might be considered prejudicial to the prestige of the Holy See.

All of the works cited above mention the important role played by Austria, but none offers a complete and reliable account of it. In line with the anti-Austrian prejudices of the Risorgimento era, most of them tend to describe Metternich as a supporter of the reactionary party, while the opposite was actually the case. Moreover, no author but Schmidlin consulted the important documents housed in the Viennese Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, and he was more concerned with throwing new light on the conclave than with examining Austrian policy per se. The documentation published in Mémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le Prince de Metternich (8 vols., Paris: Plon, 1881–1884), Vol IV, p. 587Google Scholar, is too brief to be informative. Surprisingly, the numerous modern works on Metternich, above all, von Srbik's, Heinrich Ritter Metternich, der Staatsmann und der Mensch (3 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1925–1954)Google Scholar, fail to discuss his role at this conclave. The present study is, therefore, intended to be the first detailed account based on previously neglected archival sources in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv and elsewhere of Metternich's policies at the conclave of 1829. My aim is to throw light not only on the conclave itself but also on Metternich's relations with the Papacy and with France.

The role of France in the conclave has been subjected to greater scrutiny, mainly because Chateaubriand happened to be the French representative there. Most studies of the part played by France, usually the work of literary historians, tend to be rather superficial in regard to the diplomatic and political aspects of the conclave and stress the personal role of Chateaubriand. Their depictions of the French ambassador's importance and successes have often been colored by Chateaubriand's own inflated evaluation of his contributions. The most reliable work is Durry's, Marie-Jeanne L'ambassade romaine de Chateaubriand (Paris: Champion, 1927)Google Scholar, which is superior to de Loménie's, Emmanuel Beau La carrière politique de Chateaubriand de 1814 à 1830 (2 vols., Paris: Plon, 1929), Vol. II, pp. 268–314Google Scholar. Chateaubriand's own version can be found in his Mémoires d'outre-tombe, edited by E. Bire and P. Moreau (2nd ed., 8 vols., Paris: Plon, 1929), Vol. V; in his Lettres à Madame Récamier pendant son ambassade à Rome, edited by Beau de Lomenie (Paris: Plon, 1929); and his comments in the Journal d'un conclave. A more balanced account of his role can be found in the standard work on Franco-Papal relations during this period by Feret, Pierre: La France el le Saint-Siège sous le premier Empire, la Reslauration el la Monarchie de Juillet (2 vols., Paris: Savaete, 1911), Vol. II, pp. 395–413Google Scholar. On Franco-Austrian relations during this era, see the masterful work by de Sauvigny, Guillaume de Bertier: Metternich el la France après le Congrès de Vienne (3 vols., Paris: Hachette, 1968–1971)Google Scholar. There is a brief but solid account of the conclave of 1829 in Vol. Ill, pp. 1,266–1,271.

⁵ Metternich's efforts to establish a union between throne and altar is described in my Ph. D. dissertation: “The Austrian Policy of Cardinal Consalvi, 1815–1823” (Loyola University, Chicago, III., 1964).Google Scholar

⁶ On Metternich's Italian policy during this period, see Srbik, Metternich, Vol. I, pp. 182–229 and 556–599; Schroeder, Paul W., Metternich's Diplomacy at its Zenith 1820–1823 (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Grossmann, Karl, “Metternichs Plan eines italienischen Bundes,” Historische Blätter, No. 4 (1931), pp. 37–76Google Scholar; Bettanini, Antonio M., “Un disegno di confederazione italiana,” Studi di storia dei trattati (Padua: A. Milani, 1939), pp. 3–50Google Scholar; Nada, Narciso (ed.), Le relazioni diplomatiche fra I'Austria e il Regno di Sardegna 1814–1830 (3 vols., Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l'Eta Moderna e Contemporanea, 1964–1970)Google Scholar; and Reinerman, Alan J., “Metternich, Italy, and the Congress of Verona, 1821–1822,” The Historical Journal, Vol. XIV (1971), pp. 263–287.Google Scholar

⁷ On Metternich's interest in reform in the Papal States, see my article “Metternich and Reform: The Case of the Papal State, 1814–1848,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XLII, No. 4 (December, 1970), pp. 524–548.Google Scholar

⁸ On Josephinism, see Maaß, Ferdinand, Der Josephinismus (5 vols., Vienna: Herder, 1951–1961)Google Scholar; Winter, Eduard, Der Josefinismus. Die Geschichte des öslerreichischen Reformkatholizmus (Berlin: Rütten & Loening, 1962)Google Scholar; Valjavec, Fritz, Der Josephinismus. Zur geisligen Entwicklung Österreichs im XVIII und XIX Jahrhundert (Munich: Rohrer, 1945)Google Scholar; Reiser, Herbert, Der Geist des Josephinismus und sein Fortleben (Vienna: Herder, 1962)Google Scholar; and Bernard, Paul P., “The Origins of Josephinism: Two Studies,” Colorado College Studies, No. 7 (1964).Google Scholar

⁹ On the development of Austro-Papal relations in 1815–1823, see the author's dissertation and the bibliography cited therein, especially van Duerm, Charles, Correspondance du Cardinal Hercule Consalvi avec le Prince de Metternich 1815–1823 (Louvain: Polleunis & Ceuterick, 1899)Google Scholar. Cardinal Ercole Consalvi (1757–1824) had played an important role in 1800 in the election of Pius VII. who appointed him secretary of state (1800–1806, 1814–1823). He was noted for his negotiation of the Concordat of 1801 with Napoleon, his skillful handling of Papal interests at the Congress of Vienna, and his efforts to reform the Papal States. There is no adequate biography of the cardinal.

¹⁰ Bernetti to Consalvi, November 4, 1815, Archivio segreto vaticano, Rubrica 25, No. 1.

¹¹ On the conclave of 1823, see the author's “Austria and the Papal Election of 1823,” Central European History, Vol. III, No. 3 (September, 1970), pp. 229–255, and the bibliography given there.Google Scholar

¹² Chateaubriand, to Laval, , July 18, 1823, Archives du ministére des affaires étrangeéres (Paris), Correspondence politique, Rome, Fasc. CMLVI, Fos. 285–288.Google Scholar

¹³ Cardinal Francesco Castiglione (1761–1830), an expert on canon law, long wavered between the moderate and Zelante positions. Although on good terms with Consalvi, he was distrusted by him for his susceptibility to Zelante influence. By 1829 he definitely had moved into the moderate camp and was elected as Pope Pius VIII. See Odo Fusi Pecci, La vita del Papa Pio VIII.

¹⁴ This was done by exercising his right of “exclusive” veto—a privilege which was also possessed by France and Spain.

¹⁵ On Leo XII's pontificate, see the perceptive study by Colapietra, Raffaelo: La Chiesa tra Metternich e Lammenais: II pontificato di Leone XII (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1963).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Metternich to Lutzow, February 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom. Weisungen, No. 1 and 2.

¹⁷ Metternich to Lutzow, March 4 and 12, 1829, ibid.

¹⁸ This account of the changed situation in 1829 is based on Lutzow, to Metternich, , February 14 and 28 and March 10 and 20, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Siaatskanzlei, Rom. BerichteGoogle Scholar, Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 70-C, 75-A, 78-C, and 81-A; Colapietra, La Chiesa tra Metternich e Lammenais; Colapietra, “II diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829;” and Chateaubriand's reports in the Archives du ministére des affaires étrangéres (Paris), January-March, 1829, in Fascs. CMLXV and CMLXV1.

¹⁹ On the religious crisis in France, see de Sauvigny, Guillaume de Bertier, The Bourbon Restoration, translated by Case, Lynn M. (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966), pp. 300–324 and 374–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Lutzow, to Metternich, , February 14, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berchte, Fasc. XXXV11, No. 70-C.Google Scholar For a discussion of Count Lutzow's life and career, see Hudal, Alois, Die Österrekhische Vatikanbotschaft 1806–1918 (Munich: Pohl, 1952), pp. 74–138.Google Scholar

²¹ Lutzow, to Metternich, , February 14 and 19, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berkhte, Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 70-C and 72.Google Scholar Emanuele de Gregorio (1758–1834), a Neapolitan who had family ties with the Bourbons, was prefect of the Congregation of the Council. Bartolomeo Pacca (1756–1844) was secretary of state from 1806 to 1809 and 1814 to 1815. He was also subdeacon of the Sacred College. For a biography of Cardinal Pacca, see Colonna, Brigante, Bartolomeo Pacca (Bologna: Cappelli, 1931)Google Scholar. Mauro Cappellari (1766–1846) was Prefect of the Propaganda. Later he became Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846). For a bioyaphy, see Federici, Domenico, Gregorio XVI ira favola e realtá (Rovigo: Istituto Padana di Arti Grafiche, 1947).Google Scholar

²² Metternich, to Lutzow, , February 1 and March 4, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Weisungen, Fasc. XXXVIII, No. 1.Google Scholar

²³ Metternich to Lutzow, March 4, 1829, ibid. See also his letters to Lutzow on February 21 and March 5, 1829, ibid. Giuseppe Albani (1750–1834) was a member of a noble Roman family with close ties to Austria. Despite his dubious moral reputation, Albani had for a long time been an influential figure at Rome. After representing Austrian interests at the conclave of 1823 he was appointed Cardinal-Protector of the Austrian Churches in Rome—a lucrative post with few duties.

²⁴ Metternich, to Lutzow, , March 5, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Weisungen, Fasc. XXXVIII, No. I.Google Scholar

²⁵ Metternich to Lutzow, March 12, 1829, ibid., No. 1. On Neapolitan policy at the conclave, see Moscati, “II governo napoletano e il conclave di Pio VIII.”

²⁵ Instructions to the French cardinals, February 21, 1829, as printed in Bianchi, , Stpria documentata delta diplomazia europea in Italia 1814–1861, Vol. II, pp. 422–429Google Scholar. The foreign minister's instructions to Chateaubriand were similar in tone, though they were less detailed and precise. See Portalis to Chateaubriand, February 21, 22, and 24, 1829, Archives du ministere des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXV, Nos., II, 12, and 13.

²⁷ Chateaubriand to Portalis, February 17, 1829, ibid., Fos. 224–226.

²⁸ For Chateaubriand's policy at the conclave, see his reports in the Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fascs. CMLXV and CMLXV1 (February-March, 1829). These documents, however, do not always reveal the entire truth, since Chateaubriand wanted to conceal his own policy and later the extent of his defeat. Although they have their own biases, the reports of other foreign ambassadors in Rome provide useful corrections. See especially Lutzow, to Metternich, , February 14 and 19, March 10, II, 14, 20, 21, and 31, and April 10, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte.Google Scholar Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 70-D, 72, 78-C, 79-B, 80, 81-B, 82-A, 84-B, and 87-B; Malzen's reports from February to April, 1829, in the Geheimes Archiv (Munich), Päpstlicher Stuhl, Fasc. DCCLII; and the reports of Crosa to De la Tour from February to April, 1829, in the Archivio di Stato (Turin), Letlere minisiri Roma, Fascs. CCCXXVII-CCCXXVIII.

²⁹ This account of the opening two weeks of the conclave has been based on Lutzow, to Metternich, , February 24 and 28 and March 5 and 7, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte.Google Scholar Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 73, 75-A, 76-B, and 77; Chateaubriand to Portalis, February 23 and 28 and March 3, 6, and 10, 1829, Archives du ministère des affaires átrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXV, Nos. 20, 21, 23, and 24; Crosa to De la Tour, February 24 and 26 and March 3 and 7, 1829, Archivio di Stato (Turin), Lettere ministri Roma, Fasc. CCCXXVII; Colapietra, “II diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829,” pp. 536–541 and 636–643; and Dardano, Diario dei conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31, pp. 28–36.

³⁰ On Bernetti, see Ugolino, Patrizia, “La politica estera del Bernetti, Segretario di Stato di Leone XII,” Archivio delta Deputazione romana di Storia Patria, Vol. XXIII, pp. 213–320Google Scholar; and Morelli, Emilia, La politico estera di Tommaso Bernetti (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1953).Google Scholar

³¹ Crosa to De la Tour, March 7, 1829, Archivio di Stato (Turin), Lettere ministri Roma, Fasc. CCCXXVII.

³² Lutzow, to Metternich, , March 10, 1829, Staatsarvhic (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXIII, No. 78-B.Google Scholar

³³ On Albani's ambitions, see Lutzow to Metternich, April 10 and October 24, 1829, ibid., Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 87-A and III-A; Colapietra, “II diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829,” pp. 643–647 and passim; Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, pp. 19–23 and passim; and Durry, L'ambassade romaine de Chateaubriand, pp. 112–113.

³⁴ Lutzow, to Metternich, , March 10, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 78–B.Google Scholar

³⁵ One observer asserted that he came “like a lion.” See Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, p. 19. Another claimed that he came “like a treacherous fox.” See Dardano, Diario del conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31, p. 36.

³⁶ Even his opponents admired his tactics. One wrote: “Albani is an able man. Call him the devil if you will; but on account of his skill, his ability to manage men, and his talents, he is perfectly suited to succeed in the affairs he undertakes.” Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, p. 71. For the tactics employed by Albani, see the reports by Lutzow, on March 10, 20, 21, and 29, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, BerichteGoogle Scholar, Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 78–C, 81–A, and 82–A; and Albani, to Metternich, , April 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLIII.Google Scholar

³⁷ See the copy of the speech enclosed in Lutzow, to Metternich, , March 10, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 78–C.Google Scholar

³⁸ For the text of Chateaubriand's speech, see Fusi Pecci, La vita del Papa Pio VIII, pp. 255–256.

³⁹ See ibid., pp. 257–258.

⁴⁰ Chateaubriand, Mémoires d'outre-tombe, pp. 112–113.

⁴¹ Metternich, to Lutzow, , March 25, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Weisungen, Fasc. XXXVIII, No. 1.Google Scholar

⁴² “Tabella delle votazioni,” Dardano, Diario dei conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31.

⁴³ For this period of the conclave, see Albani, to Metternich, , April 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Slaatskanzlei, Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLI11Google Scholar; Lutzow to Metternich, March 21 and 28, 1829, ibid., Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 82–A and 83–A; Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, pp. 45–67; and Colapietra, “ll diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829,” pp. 650–655.

⁴⁴ Albani, to Metternich, , April 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Slaatskanzlei, Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLIII.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Colapietra, for instance, makes this argument in his “Gaetano Moroni nel conclave del 1829,” p. 16.

⁴⁶ Albani, to Metternich, , April 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLIII.Google Scholar This report was clearly intended to excuse Albani's opposition to a candidate well regarded at Vienna. Quite possibly Albani's explanation of Cappellari's candidacy as a mere trick may have been pure invention on his part to hide his personal motives for opposition. Certainly his elaborate display of virtuous indignation at Bernetti's “evil maneuvers” seems forced. Yet Bernetti was quite capable of devising such a plot. As to where the truth of the matter lies, we can only say that if Bernetti did not invent such a plan, it would have been necessary for Albani to invent it.

⁴⁷ “Tabella delle votazioni,” Dardano, Diario dei conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31.

⁴⁸ Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, p. 93.

⁴⁹ For the final stages of the conclave, see Albani, to Metternich, , April 21, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Varia, Fasc. XLIIIGoogle Scholar; Lutzow to Metternich, March 28 and 31, 1829, ibid., Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, Nos. 83–A and 84–A; Colapietra, “11 diario Brunelli del conclave del 1829,” pp. 656–661; Dardano, Diario dei conclavi del 1829 e del 1830–31, pp. 45–47; and Chateaubriand, Journal d'un conclave, pp. 66–99.

⁵⁰ For Stendhal's account of this event, see his Promenades dans Rome (2 vols., Paris: Plon, 1926), Vol. II, pp. 352–357.

⁵¹ Lutzow, to Metternich, , March 31, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 84–BGoogle Scholar. The Piedmontese minister at Rome wrote: “Without him De Gregorio or Cappellari would surely have been Pope. It was he alone who elected this pontiff.” Crosa to De la Tour, April 1, 1829, Archivio di Stato (Turin), Lettere ministri Roma, Fasc. CCCXXVIII.

⁵² Lutzow, to Metternich, , March 31, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 84–B.Google Scholar

⁵³ Lutzow to Metternich, April 4, 1829, ibid, No. 85.

⁵⁴ Chateaubriand to Portalis, April 28, 1829, Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXV1.

⁵⁵ Lutzow, to Metternich, , April 4, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 85.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Lutzow to Metternich, April 10, 1829, ibid., No. 87–A.

⁵⁷ Metternich to Lutzow, April 9, 1829, ibid., Weisungen, Fasc. XXXVIII, No. 1.

⁵⁸ Chateaubriand, to Récamier, Madame, March 31, 1829, Beau de Loménie, Lettres de Chateaubriand à Madame Récamier, pp. 114–115.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Chateaubriand to Portalis, March 31, 1829, Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXV.

⁶⁰ Malzen, to the king of Bavaria, April 2, 1829, Geheimes Archiv (Munich), Päpstlicher Stuhl, Fasc. DCCLII, No. 56.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Crosa, to Tour, De la, April 1, 4, and 25, 1829, Archivio di Stato (Turin), Lettere ministri Roma, Fasc. CCCXXVIII.Google Scholar

⁶² Lutzow, to Metternich, , April 4, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 85.Google Scholar

⁶³ Chateaubriand to Portalis, April 28, 1829, Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXVI, No. 34.

⁶⁴ Chateaubriand to Portalis, March 31, 1829, ibid., No. 37.

⁶⁵ Portalis to Chateaubriand, April 8, 1829, ibid., Fasc. CMLXV, No. 23.

⁶⁶ Chateaubriand to Portalis, May 4, 1829, ibid., Fasc. CMLXVI, No. 36.

⁶⁷ Chateaubriand to Portalis, April 16, 1829, ibid., No. 33.

⁶⁸ See especially Chateaubriand to Portalis, April 2, 16, and 28, 1829, ibid., Fasc. CMLXV, Nos. 31, 33, and 34; and Chateaubriand to Portalis, May 4, 1829, ibid., Fasc. CMLXVI, No. 36. The Journal d'un conclave was also sent to Paris as part of the same effort, but its praise of Chateaubriand was so naively exaggerated that the foreign minister saw through it as easily as does the modern historian.

⁶⁹ Chateaubriand to Portalis, April 28, 1829, Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris), Fasc. CMLXVI, No. 34. Unfortunately for Chateaubriand, not only was his proposal not accepted by the French foreign minister but it was intercepted on the way to Paris by the Austrian secret police. Metternich promptly sent a copy to Rome to heighten Albani's and the Pope's distrust of France and strengthen their loyalty to Austria. Metternich, to Lutzow, , May 22, 1829 (secret), Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Weisungen, Fasc. XXXVIII.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Portalis, to Chateaubriand, , April 25, 1829, as printed in Durry, L'ambassade romaine de Chateaubriand, pp. 152–154.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For Pius VIII's pontificate, see Fusi Pecci, La vita del Papa Pio VIII; and Schmidlin, Histoire des papes de l'époque contemporaine, Vol. II, pp. 149–184.

⁷² On the recognition by the Pope of Louis Philippe as the legitimate king of France, see “Avvenimenti di Francia del mese di luglio 1830,” Archivio segreto vaticano, Rubrica 242. See also Lutzow's reports from August to October, 1830, in Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte. The documents in the Archivio segreto vaticano were used by Sante Celli for his article on “II riconoscimento di Luigi Filippo da parte da Santa Sede,” in Chiesa e stato nell'ottocento, edited by Robert Aubert, Alberto M. Ghisalberti, and Ettore Passerin d'Entreves (2 vols., Padua: Milani, 1962), Vol. 1, pp. 67–107. Santa Celli, however, made no use of the documents in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv in Vienna and consequently failed to emphasize the importance of Metternich's advice in influencing the Papal decision.

⁷³ Durry, L'ambassade romaine du Chateaubriand, pp. 101–104; Chateaubriand, , Mémoires d'outre-tombe, Vol. VII, pp. 205–208Google Scholar. Chateaubriand's departure actually was not entirely unwelcome to him. For some time he had been anxious to return to Paris, in hopes of regaining the foreign ministry, though his defeat at the conclave had made this unlikely, as he told the Pope with some bitterness. Lutzow to Metternich, , June 13, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 97–B.Google Scholar Moreover, he was increasingly out of sympathy with the policies of the ministry. To some extent, therefore, he was willing to use the quarrel over the conclave as a pretext to bring his Roman mission to an end. Durry, L'Ambassade romaine du Chateaubriand, pp. 102–103. Lutzow regretted the termination of his embassy, fearing that it would only lead to his “exaltation” and a “wider theater where he can do greater harm.” Lutzow to Metternich, , May 9, 1829, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Rom, Berichte, Fasc. XXXVII, No. 92–B.Google Scholar