History as influenced by Reason, Spirit and Appetite
In southern England in the later part of the ninth century A.D. King Alfred the Great authorised, and may have personally
contributed to, a translation of Boethius' work "The Consolations of Philosophy."
Whilst this translation is not today held to be fully accurate it did, as published under the royal authority of Alfred as
King of Wessex, include this passage:
"… you know that desire for and possession of earthly power never pleased me overmuch, and that I did not unduly desire this earthly rule,
but that nevertheless I wished for tools and resources for the task that I was commanded to accomplish, which was that I should
virtuously and worthily guide and direct the authority which was entrusted to me. You know of course that no-one can make known
any skill, nor direct and guide any enterprise, without tools and resources; a man cannot work on any enterprise without
resources. In the case of the king, the resources and tools with which to rule are that he have his land fully manned: he
must have praying men, fighting men and working men. You know also that without these tools no king may make his ability known."
Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources
Some decades thereafter two churchmen based in continental Europe both separately proposed that men could be identified by whether
they primarily pray, fight or work:
… they portrayed society as an accumulation of communities. Soon after the year 1000 Bishop Adalbaro of Laon and Bishop Gerard of Cambrai described the existence of humankind as an
interaction of three estates, namely of praying men, peasants, and warriors. Gerard pointed out that this threefold partition originated from the creation of humans by God himself. The
unknown chronicler of the Bishops of Cambrai paraphrased Gerard’s doctrine in the following words:
He taught that humankind was divided from the very beginning in a threefold way, in praying men, in peasants, and in warriors. He
clearly outlined that these three parts supported one another …
… Adalbero presented the unique house of God as a mutual entanglement of different parts:
The threefold house of God at once appeared as a unity. One part prays, the second fights, the third labours. But these parts are joined together without any disjunction. The efforts
of two parts stand for the office of one. They give comfort to each other by mutual change, because this threefold combination is in fact unitary. As long as this law shines the world
rests in peace.
Potency of the Common: Intercultural Perspectives about Community and Individuality, Gert Melville and Carlos Ruta, p. 173
Is it perhaps more reasonable, all things considered, to strongly suspect that the underlying tripartism suggested by
religion, and various philosophical and literary figures, is
to a greater or lesser extent, "Cause" of "Effect."
One of these effects being no less, no more, and no other, as to contribute very considerably to the ways in which several societies
in Euroope featured orderins of affairs wherein:
"some men worked, some men fought and some men prayed"
Such societies of came to be arranged with lords receiving military knight-service from their client-knights and also having armed retainers in their
employment. Lesser lords were often clients of greater lords and all owed service to the king.
Poorer persons often lived out their lives on estates owned by such lords and knights and, consequently, could hope to enjoy a degree of
protection from external threat from the lords and knights they served.
Such feudal societies being peopled by a church clergy, and male and female monastics, that were often supported by considerable
wealth largely accumulated through donations, bequests and the revenues earned
by selling produce from the vast estates of the church along with a feudal nobility complete with their armed "retainers," and a wider society
composed of lay persons who worked in a variety of roles hoping thereby to earn their livings, and, through their actions and their skills, providing
for the material wants and needs of society as a whole.
From those centuries immediately after the Fall of the (Western) Roman Empire Western Europe came to feature a number of Dynastic states, in which it was
typical for religious hierarchies to have a prominent place, supportive of and supported by the ruler, and in which it was typical for
hierarchies of Noblemen to have a prominent place, (usually) supportive of and (usually) supported by the ruler.
Persons coming from less priviledged backgrounds may have had some opportunity of entering into the service of the church in some capacity
or other, may have entered the service of some nobleman in some capacity or other, or attempted to earn their livings as laborers, artisans or traders.
Why should we find it at all difficult to accept that "Tripartite Societal Foundations" laid down, and built upon, in the
centuries immediately after that Roman Imperial collapse, subsequently tended to provide overall contexts in which Human lives were lived,
in Western Europe (and beyond), for more than a thousand years thereafter?
The administrative life of the French kingdom came to feature royally sponsored assemblies, both at provincial level and kingdom-wide, where
representatives regarded as being individually associated
with a "First Estate" of Churchmen, or a "Second Estate" of Nobles, or a "Third Estate" of everyone else, were typically present.
Such kingdom-wide assemblies came to be referred to as Estates General.
Similarly the administrative and political life of the English state featured a Parliament where an "Upper House" was comprised of Lords Spiritual and
Lords Temporal and there was a "Lower House" of Commons.
In his seminal work "The Three Orders" Georges Duby begins with an introduction which is entitled "The Field of Inquiry."
These are the opening sentences :
"Some are devoted particularly to the service of God; others to the preservation of the state by arms; still others to the task of feeding it and maintaining it by peaceful labours. These are our three orders or estates general of France, the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Third Estate."
These words are quoted as appearing in a work by a Parisian jurist named Charles Loyseau entitled Traité des Ordres et Simples Dignitez.
This work was first published in 1610 and Duby
states that it "was immediately recognized as highly useful and continually reissued throughout the seventeenth century."
It requires a little familiarity with European history for mention of the "three orders" and the "estates general" of France to set mental bells ringing about possible
associations with the French Revolution of 1789. Such associations can indeed be held to exist - as "Three Orders" social tripartism did persist in France up until 1789.
A "French Revolution" began to impact upon French and European society in 1789 and before long commentators found it possible to refer to the previous ordering of society as
being the "Ancien Regime."
We may well ask:
How possible is it that this "Ancien Regime" France, which was overthrown in the last decade of the eighteenth century, can be validly seen as having been
"an in some significant ways unwholesome" elaboration of the Feudal Monarchy of earlier centuries?
In 1788 the convening of Estates General, to be composed of representatives of the Three Orders, was arranged in the hope of addressing pressing financial problems then being faced
by the French royal state.
A volcano which massively erupted on Iceland had a dramatic effect on the atmosphere, and the climate, across Western Europe.
Not only livestock, but many people died due to atmospheric contamination. The heaviness of the ash cloud lessened the amount of sunlight reaching the crops in the fields. Lack of
growth in plants, and unfavourable weather at harvest-time, threatened to lead to food shortages, and to high prices, in a situation where many poorer persons had had to become
used to living on incomes that had barely sustained themselves and their families. This seriously undermined the ability of many rural dwellers to pay their taxes.
Efforts sponsored by the king at restructuring the French tax system made no progress. Attempts were made to agree on measures with Parlement of Paris, highly significant in law
and administration in France, and also in the twelve provincial Parlements.
Assemblies of Notables composed of many powerful persons were convened and successively failed to agree on courses of action which would contribute sufficiently to achieving a
resolution to the financial crisis.
Given the seeming paralysis, and the seriousness of the financial crisis, and there were calls for the convocation of an Estates General in the hope that its proceedings would
arrive at a resolution which would allow a restoration of the state finances.
The kings of France had not authorised such an Estates General since 1614. At which time, and in line with established practices, the three estates, or "orders", had each
convened and deliberated separately. A First Estate of Churchmen, a Second Estate of the Nobility, and a Third Estate of "everybody else" had each debated and voted
separately with each order’s resolutions being individually submitted to the king "by order", (or in French, "par ordre").
A convening of an incoming Estates General was set for early May, 1789, and was to take place at the extensive royal palace complex at Versailles.
Questions arose as to what ceremonial should accompany the convening of the Estates General and what procedures would be followed during its proceedings. Would the ceremonies and the
procedures adopted closely mirror the practices and traditions of earlier ages?
France had changed dramatically in the one hundred and fifty years since 1614 and the ceremonial and the procedural practices to be followed at Estates General had not been revised.
In the months leading up to the Estates General being convened persons such as the Abbé Sieyès wrote articles and authored pamphlets protesting at the unfairness of a situation
whereby the numerically limited First and Second estates, offering their submissions separately and par ordre, could offer to overwhelm two-to-one the very much more numerous Third Estate.
The Third Estate, in the estimations of Sieyès and others, comprised more than ninety-seven per cent of the population and were held by them to be the "Estate" which
contributed the greatest overall amounts in taxation by a wide margin.
Sieyès expressed a preference that in the upcoming Estates General that all the deputies, regardless of the estate they were there to represent, should meet jointly.
Such joint sessions would then allow debate and the individual casting of votes "by head", (or in French, "par tête"), with the resolutions of the Estates General, as so
arrived at, being submitted to the king.
During these times there were already instances of provincial assemblies holding their proceedings as joint meetings of the three estates and voting as single chambers.
Processes of selection of deputies to attend the upcoming Estates General were entered into on behalf of each of the three orders. In line with earlier traditions the
royal authority offered an opportunity for deputies to bring "Cahiers de doléances," ("lists of grievances"), with them to Versailles on behalf of those who they would be there to represent.
In resisting measures that the king had tried to impose the Parlement of Paris it had seemed to champion liberal reform but, when it became evident that it was in
favour of the three estates holding their meetings separately and voting par ordre, the high levels of public support which it had received ebbed away.
The royal authority made the concession to popular opinion of doubling the number of deputies who would be authorised to attend as representatives of the third estate
but offered no guidelines as to whether the Three Estates would meet individually or in joint-sessions.
An official charged with arranging the proceedings that were due to take place at Versailles communicated to all of the selected deputies that they should adopt styles
of dress that were deemed appropriate to "their order." Churchmen were to wear clerical garb - black for priests, purple for bishops and crimson for cardinals. Noblemen were
to wear somewhat lavish clothes and plumed hats of a type that was held to date back to the days of Henry IV. Deputies who were there to represent the Third Estate were
encouraged to wear relatively modest black clothes including knee-breeches, or culottes. The tricorn hats which they were also encouraged to wear were not supposed to feature any decoration.
At the time of the first meeting of the Estates General in May, 1789, the various deputies, assembled in their respective Orders, moved in procession through to participate
in a religious ceremony that had been arranged to mark the opening of the Estates General.
When proceedings actually began the deputies were invited into a great hall where the three hundred or so deputies representing the clergy were seated as a bloc on the side
to the right of the king, the three hundred or so deputies representing the nobility were seated on the other side, and the six hundred or so third estate deputies were expected
to stand at the back of the hall.
A speech was read out somewhat inaudibly and at great length and it became increasingly evident that the royal authority was prioritising its intention of reforming the state
finances without committing to any political or social reforms.
It became clear that it was intended by the royal authority that the deputies would undergo processes whereby their credentials were validated par ordre, and then meet to
debate as separate estates prior to offering their submissions to the king par ordre.
The aspirations of most of the Third Estate deputies were directed towards the establishment of joint sessions and of the finalising in such joint sessions, par tête, of
submissions that were to be placed before the king. Most of these third deputies had come to Versailles with Cahiers which they felt were directly supportive of such
meeting and voting procedures.
In the event most third estate deputies refused to co-operate with the validation of their credentials unless it was clear that all the deputies would meet jointly and then vote "par tête."
There was a stand-off which lasted several weeks during which time many Third Estate deputies thought they were being reasonable considering that the Third Estate
represented more than ninety-five per cent of the overall population and paid, through their diverse contributions, most of the taxes raised in the kingdom.
It appeared to many of the Third Estate deputies that their aspirations were being haughtily dismissed by most of the nobility and many of the higher clergy. Persons
who held high office in the church were almost entirely drawn from the families of the powerful nobility.
Some members of the lower clergy who typically came from less privileged families, however, showed more sympathy with the position being adopted by the Third Estate.
Against a background of misunderstanding where it appeared that the royal authority was set to deny the deputies their accustomed use of a great meeting hall the Third
Estate deputies proceeded into a large chamber that housed an indoor tennis court to determine how they should now act.
The misunderstanding arose from the royal authority's failure to communicate that the king himself intended to use the meeting hall to address the three estates jointly
offering his own resolution to the stand-off.
Whilst in the tennis court the Third Estate deputies almost unanimously proclaimed themselves to be the National Assembly of France, asserted that the National Assembly was the
competent authority to decide upon the financial issues with which the state was faced, and swore that they would not disband until France had a Constitution under which it
would be governed in the future.
Some clerical deputies, mainly drawn from the lower clergy, soon joined in with the proceedings of the would-be National Assembly as did a few liberal deputies from the noble
estate. This newly emergent situation was thereafter endorsed by the king ordering the remaining clerical deputies and the remaining deputies representing the nobility to
join in with the proceedings of, (what he now gave implicitly assent to), the National Assembly.
It would seem that a "French Nation" was recognised by all parties as having displaced the previous "three estates" in the affairs of the French realm.
Although things seemed to take a more revolutionary turn with the seizing of a Royal fortress-prison known as the Bastille on
July 14, 1789, (and by its subsequent destruction), it seemed for a time that King Louis XVI would consent to the establishment
of a Constitutional Monarchy.
Threats to such developments evidently posed by militarily mobilized external powers, and the "Flight to Varennes" of Louis XVI, where
documentation was left behind indicating his repudiation of the concessions he had made, were followed by a "Reign of Terror" where
persons held to be supportive of Royalism, Aristocracy and Religion, (as traditionally observed in the Kingdom of France), were often
put to death.
The Queen and King were amongst the thousands of aristocratic and other persons whose lives were cut short by the operation of an
apparatus known as The Guillotine. Many churches were closed or re-dedicated as "Temples of Reason," monastic foundations were often severely
harassed and their memberships frequently murdered or dispersed.
Such official De-Christianization came to be accompanied by efforts to establish a Constitutional Church, that was to be similar in
its doctrines and rites to the Catholic Church, (which was under the authority of the Pope in Rome), that it was intended, by
the revolutionary authorities, to displace.
The Terror came to an end shortly after the fall of from power and influence of Maximilien Robespierre, who had, as a younger person attended
an elite secondary school, and been nominated by its authorities to deliver a loyal address to King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette.
Some years thereafter a general named Napoleon Bonaparte managed to seize the reins of power in France and acted to end "The Revolution" whilst
maintaining the widespread influence of the French Republic, and adoption of French-inspired reforms, in much of continental Europe.
Whilst campaigning in the north of the Italian peninsula in the late spring of 1800 Napoleon had a meeting with a cardinal to whom he suggested that reconciliation
between the Consular France and the Catholic Church should be possible.
Such thinking led Napoleon to consider withdrawing support for the Constitutional Church which had been sponsored, after 1789, by previous French authorities
and to consider offering support to a recovery of a Catholic Church that was given recognition by the Pope:
Holcroft relates the following anecdote of Bonaparte:
"Volney had believed in his virtue, had been his friend, and admitted to his familiarity, and, being a sincere friend of freedom himself, continued its defender. He was one day
endeavouring to convince the chief consul of the mischief he would do to mankind, by again conferring power on the priesthood, and burthening the people who were of a
different creed with a general and unjust tax. Bonaparte replied – "Why do you mention the people? I do but act in this business according to their desire: a
large majority of the people wish for the re-establishment of the church"’.
The Life and Campaigns of Napoleon Bonaparte: From His Birth Down to His Departure for St. Helena, J. W. Robertson, p. 308.
During these times Napoleon Bonaparte also said this to his Council of State :
"My policy is to govern men as the majority wish. That, I believe, is the way to recognize sovereignty of the people."
Napoleon, Vincent Cronin, Harper Collins, p. 212
Following on from the demise of Pope Pius VI a successor had been installed as Pius VII in March, 1800. The incoming pope was relatively youthful and was of a humble disposition and
proved to be open to hearing more of what Napoleon had to say about reconciling France with the Catholic Church.
Negotiations were entered into in Paris from November, 1801.
From Easter, April 1802, Catholic churches, long officially suppressed, were again allowed to openly celebrate religious rites across France.
In late April, 1802, a decree of the French senate made it possible for many of those who had emigrated since the onset of the revolution to return to France.
A Peace of Amiens was agreed in March, 1802 allowing for a cessation of open hostilities between France and Britain. The agreement of this Peace meant that English visitors now found it possible to visit Paris.
John Gibson Lockhart made mention of what such visitors could witness in the Consular court maintained by Napoleon and his wife Josephine:
"To their great surprise they found the consular court already arranged, in many particulars, upon the old model of the monarchy, and daily approximating to that example, step by step. Josephine had restored, titles alone excepted, the old language of polite intercourse: Citoyenne had been replaced by Madame; and Citoyen was preparing to make way for Monsieur. The emigrant nobility had flocked back in great numbers; and Buonaparte, dispensing with the awkward services of his aides-de-camp in the interior of the palace, was now attended by chamberlains and other officers of state - chosen for the most part, from the highest families of the monarchy; and who studiously conducted themselves towards the Chief Consul exactly as if the crown of Louis XVI had descended to him by the ordinary laws of inheritance."
John Gibson Lockhart, The History of Napoleon Buonaparte, pp. 168-9
In 1802 Napoleon pushed for the establishment of a "Legion of Honour" whereby both soldiers and civilians could be honoured by the state for their efforts and their contributions to the good of the state. The old system of nobility that had been established under the kings of France had been abolished by the Revolution as it sought thereby to promote Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The strong opposition that Napoleon met in relation to his proposed Legion of Honour seems to have been attributable to strong suspicions that it would prove to be a step that could actually become a first step lead along the road towards the recognition of another system of titled nobility in France.
According to John Gibson Lockhart :
"It is said that the first idea of the Legion of Honour arose in the breast of Napoleon on witnessing one day, from a window at the Tuileries, the admiration with which the crowd before the palace regarded the stars and crosses worn by the Marquis Lucchesini, ambassador of Prussia, as he descended from his carriage. The republican members of the senate could not be persuaded that the institution of an order, with insignia, was anything but the first step to the creation of a new body of nobility; and they resisted the proposed measure with considerable pertinacity. On this head, as on that of the concordat with the Pope, the Consul condescended to enter personally into discussion with the chief persons who differed from his opinion, or suspected his intentions; and if any, who heard his language on this occasion, doubted that both nobility and monarchy were designed to follow hard behind the Legion of Honour, they must have been singularly slow of understanding. Berthier had called ribbons and crosses "the playthings of monarchy," and cited the Romans of old as "having no system of honorary rewards." "They are always talking to us of the Romans," said Buonaparte. "The Romans had patricians, knights, citizens, and slaves:- for each class different dresses and different manners - honorary recompenses for every species of merit - mural crowns - civic crowns - ovations - triumphs - titles. When the noble band of patricians lost its influence, Rome fell to pieces - the people were vile rabble. It was then that you saw the fury of Marius, the proscriptions of Sulla, and afterwards of the emperors. In like manner Brutus is talked of as the enemy of tyrants: he was an aristocrat, who stabbed Cæsar, because Cæsar wished to lower the authority of the noble senate. You talk of child's rattles - be it so: it is with such rattles that men are led. I would not say that to the multitude; but in a council of statesmen one may speak the truth. I do not believe that the French people love liberty and equality. Their character has not been changed in ten years: they are still what their ancestors, the Gauls, were - vain and light. They are susceptible but of one sentiment - honour. It is right to afford nourishment to this sentiment: and to allow of distinctions. Observe how the people bow before the decorations of foreigners. Voltaire calls the common soldiers Alexanders at five sous a day. He was right: it is just so. Do you imagine that you can make men fight by reasoning? Never. You must bribe them with glory, distinctions, rewards. To come to the point: during ten years there has been a talk of institutions. Where are they? All has been overturned: our business is to build up. There is a government with certain powers: as to all the rest of the nation what is it but grains of sand? Before the Republic can be definitely established, we must, as a foundation, cast some blocks of granite on the soil of France. In fine, it is agreed that we have need of some kind of institutions. If this Legion of Honour is not approved, let some other be suggested. I do not pretend that it alone will save the state; but it will do its part."
John Gibson Lockhart, The History of Napoleon Buonaparte, pp. 173 - 175
On the 15th of May, 1802, the Legion of Honour, as personally sponsored by Napoleon, was formally instituted.
Those being inducted into the Legion of Honour were expected to take an oath as follows:
"I swear, on my honour, to devote myself to the service of the republic, to the preservation of the integrity of its territory, to the defence of its government, its laws, and the property by them consecrated; to oppose by every means which justice, reason and the laws authorize, all acts tending to re-establish the feudal system, or to revive the titles and distinctions belonging to it; finally, to contribute, to the utmost of my power, to the maintenance of liberty and equality."
The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Volume 2, Louis Antoine Fauvalet de Bourrienne, pp. 261-262
Whilst the Legion of Honour was open to receiving civilians as well as military men it soon became clear that it was the military men who were to be in a distinct majority.
The openness that Napoleon had signalled in relation to reconciliation over religion led to the agreement of a "Concordat" between France and the Catholic Church in September, 1802.
By its terms the "constitutional" church was no longer to be supported by the French authorities and "Roman" Catholicism was to be recognised as the religion accepted by the majority of the French population.
Napoleon served for a time as "First Consul" of the French Republic but became persuaded that the reforms he approved of, which had taken place
in France since May, 1789, could best be preserved if he himself became a dynastic ruler, and left an heir to succeed him as ruler.
Napoleon was proclaimed as Emperor in ceremonials held in Paris during which he took the proposed Imperial Crown from the hands of the Pope
and placed it on his own head.
Prominent generals, and yet more senior soldiers known as Marshals of France, were not infrequently raised to the hereditary nobility and
awarded large estates to support their new titular rank.
When the Napoleonic system was ended in 1815, through the interventions of an alliance of conservative dynastic powers, France was restored
to the sovereignty of a younger brother of Louis XVI who took the title King Louis XVIII, holding that a son of Louis XVI who had been held
in close confinement and subjected to revolutionary indoctrination during the earlier days of the revolution, but who had died in captivity,
should be regarded as having reigned as King Louis XVII.
Thus, some twenty years after a revolutionary "Reign of Terror" was at its height, at which time numerous "Aristos", and other
condemned persons, were brought to La Place de la Revolution in horse-drawn carts to meet their alloted appointment with an
appartus of execution known as the Guillotine, and many parts of France (not least Paris) were subject to severely imposed
De-Christianisation, it happened that with the
Restoration of Monarchy in France there was to be a prominent place again the Catholic Church and for ennobled
persons: be they from 'old families,' or raised to their titles during Napoleon's Empire.
It was suggested earlier that "Tripartite Societal Foundations" laid down, and built upon, in the centuries
immediately after the Fall of the (Western) Roman Empire, subsequently provided contexts in which Human lives were lived, in Western
Europe (and beyond), for more than a thousand years thereafter.
Reason and Knowledge have always played a secondary, subordinate, auxiliary role in the life of peoples, and this will always be
the case. A people is shaped and driven forward by an entirely different kind of force, one which commands and coerces them
and the origin of which is obscure and inexplicable despite the reality of its presence.
You have to look at history as an evolution of society.
History does not unfold: it piles up.
Robert M. Adams
We will now move on to consider how what was built on "Tripartite Societal Foundations" in diverse parts of Western Europe
in the centuries immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire, (in the west) has become subject to apparent subsidence and decay.
page mention is made of the origins of some of those populist aspirations, (such as Liberalism, Constitutionalism, Nationalism and
Socialism) that impacted on, and shook-up, the pre-existing Dynastic, Clerical, Aristocratic and "Third Estate" ordering of
diverse European "Dynastically" arranged societies.
Links are provided below to pages, (on our partner site Age-of-the-Sage.org), which consider the European Revolutions of 1848-9 when Liberalizing, Constitutionalizing,
Nationalistic and Socialistic agendas were actively pursued by their respective supporters and dynastic rulers proved unable, for
several months, to re-establish their own preferred versions of Social Order:
- 1 The European Revolution of 1848 begins
- A broad outline of the background to the onset of the turmoils and a consideration of some of the early events.
- 2 The French Revolution of 1848
- A particular focus on France - as an Austrian foreign minister said "When France sneezes Europe catches a cold".
- 3 The Revolution of 1848 in Germany and central Europe
- The Germanies - Germany - had a movement for a single parliament in 1848 and many central European would-be "nations" attempted
to assert a distinct existence separate from the dynastic sovereignties they had been living under.
- 4 The "Italian" Revolution of 1848
- A "liberal" Papacy after 1846 helps allow the embers of an "Italian" national aspiration to rekindle across the Italian Peninsula.
- 5 The European Revolutions - reactionary aftermath 1848-1849
- Some instances of social and political extremism allow previously pro-reform liberal elements to join conservative elements in supporting
the return of traditional authority. Such nationalities living within the Habsburg Empire as the Czechs, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs and Roumanians,
find it more credible to look to the Emperor,
rather than to the democratised assemblies recently established in Vienna and in Budapest as a result of populist agitation, for the future protection
of their nationality.
The Austrian Emperor and many Kings and Dukes regain political powers. Louis Napoleon, (who later became the Emperor Napoleon III), elected as President
in France offering social stability at home but ultimately follows policies productive of dramatic change in the wider European
structure of states and their sovereignty.
- Also of instructive interest: Italian Unification - Cavour,
Garibaldi and the Unification of Italy
- Whereas the Italian Peninsula featured a plurality of states, (the States of the Church, together with several Kingdoms, Grand Duchies and Duchies),
well into the second quarter of the nineteen-hundreds), and where this plurality of states had been largely restored after the events of 1848-9,
a "unified" Kingdom of Italy was established in 1861 and further expanded on in 1870.
Key sources supportive of Tripartite Theory of Soul