St. Clair Augustin Mulholland ~ Irishman. Philadelphian. Artist. Civil War Hero. Catholic.

General St. Clair Augustin Mulholland later in life.

As Independence Day approaches each year, I make a habit of finding a patriotic movie or two to pop into the DVD player to watch with the kids. This year, we began with Gods and Generals, that beautiful but flawed epic of the first two years of the Civil War. The film contrasts the career of Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson with that Union General Joshua Chamberlain, and while focusing on these two, it introduces several other figures as bit players. 

One of these who showed up during the Battle of Fredericksburg was St. Clair Augustin Mulholland. When his name was shown on the screen, it looked familiar. Where had I seen it before? Ah, yes! He appeared prominently in a previous post: "One of the most impressive religious ceremonies I have ever witnessed" ~ Father William Corby's general absolution at Gettysburg.

Mulholland had been at Gettysburg where he witnessed Fr. Corby's general absolution. It was his account of the act that I had included in the post, taken from his book, The story of the 116th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers in the War of the Rebellion.

But as with so many of these amazing men from the Civil War period, there is much, much more to General Mulholland's story than mere gallantry in combat—though there is plenty of that.

And he is practically forgotten today, even in his adopted hometown of Philadelphia where his earthly remains lie interned in Old Cathedral Cemetery. 

St. Clair Augustin Mulholland was born a son of the Emerald Isle in County Antrim in AD 1839. When still a boy, his family emigrated to the United States in the midst of the Potato Famine. As with many Irish youth, Mulholland gravitated toward a military career, and by the time the American Civil War erupted in 1861, he would become a colonel at the ripe age of 23. 

Mulholland in uniform
during the Civil War.

Serving throughout the war, Mulholland saw action at Fredericksburg where he was wounded leading the ill-fated charge up Marye's Heights. He would be awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor for his gallantry covering the Union retreat at Chancellorsvile. As mentioned above, he served at Gettysburg where his regiment was practically annihilated. He survived to fight and receive wounds at Wilderness. He was wounded again at Po River, and badly injured by a musketball to the groin at Topotomy Creek. 

For his outstanding courage during the the Civil War, Mulholland was given brevet rank of Major General.

But that's not where his story ends, not by a long-shot. 

Following the war, Mulholland returned to Philadelphia where he became chief of police in 1868. In that post, he was credited with bringing discipline to the department which had been in some disorder before his arrival. He is also praised for breaking up a gang known as the "Schuylkill Rangers" which had been terrorizing the city.

He served many years on the Board of Prison Inspections. According to a eulogy written at the time of Mulholland's death in 1910 in the Journal of the American Irish Historical Society:  

It was said of him that he personally helped more unfortunates to start life anew than any other man in the state. He made the subject of prison discipline and its reform a study, and it was he who formed the committee that drafted the new parole law.

General Mulholland was also a lover of American history, particularly the contributions which Irish and Catholic Americans had played in it. Perceiving that secular and Protestant historians tended to minimize or ignore completely the role played by Catholics in American history, Mulholland participated in a campaign of speeches and memorials to remind the nation of their contributions. As part of this effort, Mulholland and his fellow Irish Catholics funded and built several memorials. 

Statue of Commodore Barry in Philadelphia.

Mulholland played a key role in raising $10,500 (the equivalent of about $350,000 in today's dollars) for the creation of the prominent statue of Commodore John Barry which may be seen to this day in dramatic pose behind Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Of Commodore Barry, Mulholland would offer the following praise in a speech: 

One of the most illustrious of Ireland’s sons, a brilliant child of the wind and waves, a heroic warrior of the sea who never knew defeat, the Father and Founder of the Navy of the United States.

It was General Mulholland who first conceived the idea of raising a statue to his friend, Fr. Corby, saying that it would "be of great benefit to the Catholic Church, identifying the Church with patriotism on the battlefields of our country." [Memoirs of a Chaplain's Life, Appendix 2] As chairman of a committee of the Catholic Alumni Sodality, General Mulholland was instrumental moving the project forward. The statue of Fr. Corby was completed shortly after Mulholland's death in 1910. 

Also late in his life, Mulholland was appointed to head the commission to create the Pennsylvania memorial at Gettysburg. Though he did not survive to see the completion of the project, the Pennsylvania memorial would be built and is the grandest on the battlefield. 

While doing the research on this post, I was surprised to discover that there was another side of General Mulholland. Beneath his rough exterior hardened by years of exposure on the march and danger on the battlefield, St. Clair Mulholland retained the softer soul of an artist. Similar to Lew Wallace, who eclipsed his fame as a general during the Civil War by writing a memorable novel (Ben Hur), St. Clair Mulholland was an accomplished painter of landscapes. Following the war, he embarked on a five year tour of Europe where he painted many beautiful scenes. Some examples of his work may be seen below:

Grand Canal, Venice.

Rowing in the Marsh

Shipping of the Coast

Mulholland was also personally devout and chivalrous. In a 1928 essay, Anne Easby-Smith records the following about the general: 

Yet this richly gifted man was, in his piety, as sincere and simple as a little child. His devotion to the Blessed Virgin was touching. From the age of fifteen until his death, he recited the rosary daily. His courtesy to women is illustrated by an incident during the War. Leading a hundred men through the swamp of Chickahominy, he came to a narrow pass where there was room for only one. Two Sisters of Charity were approaching. Immediately, the young officer stepped into the muddy swamp, to be followed by the whole regiment, to the great confusion of the Sisters.

For all his accomplishments, General Mulholland seemed to remain a humble soul to the very end of his life. When he died in 1910, he was buried in Old Cathedral Cemetery in a grave without a marker. The existing plaque was added much later. In the conclusion of her essay, Anne Easby-Smith sums up General Mulholland's character in this way:  

A soldier first and last, General Mulholland had simple tastes and few personal wants. “When I die,” he had said, “wrap me in the American Flag and put me in the hole. That is all the funeral I need.” Faithful to the flag for which he had fought and bled, General St. Clair Mulholland was equally faithful to the creed of his fathers, a true Catholic layman who stood before the world proud of the dual loyalty to God and country of which his entire life was a noble illustration.

What more is there to say? General Mulholland is yet another of those incredible, multi-faceted individuals whose characters were shaped in the forge of the American Civil War and whose subsequent noble lives are an ornament to the country they loved. Given General Mulholland's devotion to God, Ireland, America, and the memory of Civil War comrades, I suspect that the depiction of the sacrifice of the 116th Pennsylvania at Fredericksburg in Gods and Generals would have met with his approval, even if his own prominent presence in the film as their heroic leader may have piqued his humility.

Here are a few other posts on the Civil War that have appeared on this blog:

• Gen. James Longstreet: "Brave soldier, gallant gentleman, consistent Christian"
• Commander of the Union Army: Giuseppe Garibaldi?
• Civil War Vets Aboard the Cruiser Olympia ~ Seamen Purdy and McCue Re-fight their Ancient Battle
• "One of the most impressive religious ceremonies I have ever witnessed" ~ Father William Corby's general absolution at Gettysburg
• Will the Left tear down Stand Watie's monument?
• The Conversion of Frederick Douglass

Quo Primum and the rumored forthcoming attack on Traditional Mass communities

About two years ago, I wrote a post lamenting the continuing efforts to restrict access to the Traditional Latin Mass by the spiritually tone-deaf, aging radical contingent which is currently favored in Rome. At that time, I quoted the encyclical of Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum, which grants in perpetuity the right of all priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

Since doing that, I realized recently that I left off a fairly critical piece, namely the closing admonition of Pope Saint Pius V, which reads as follows in Latin:

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. 

This translates to English as follows:

Therefore, let it be licit for none among men to infringe upon the permissions, statutes, ordinances, mandates, precepts, concessions, indults, wills, decretals and inhibitions in this document of ours, or to have the rashness to oppose them. If, however, someone should presume to attempt this, he should know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Those in Rome attempting to push forward the rumored harsh restrictions, assuming they believe in God, should tremble before doing so. It should be recalled that St. John Chrysostom warned: "If you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost." Our bishops and priests ignore at their own peril the warnings of the saints and the will of the Holy Spirit, who bestows good fruit upon the devout, and evil fruit upon the worldly.  

And it is well to recall the observations of Fulcher of Chartres in the 12th century AD: 

When the Roman Church, which is the source of correction for all Christianity, is troubled by any disorder, the sorrow is communicated from the nerves of the head to the members subject to it, and these suffer sympathetically....For when the head is thus struck, the members at once are sick. If the head be sick, the other members suffer.

The head is clearly sick. Thus, we suffer. Thus, the world suffers. 

If further restrictions come, no one should be surprised at what happens next.

Justinian and Theodora in meme-form

The anxiety of being married to Empress Theodora.

I've been creating a good number of memes lately. While what happened to Pope St. Silverius is certainly no laughing matter, I figured something like this is a good way of starting conversations about Silverius and encouraging folks to ask for his intercession. The meme has garnered a good bit of attention on Reddit and other places where I've posted it, so who knows?

For what it's worth, Silverius is one of the individuals to whom I dedicated Book III of my Belisarius series, Rome the Eternal. And it seemed fitting given that his sad reign plays a major role in the story. 

For other posts on Pope Saint Silverius, see:

• Pope Saint Silverius ~ Resisted state-mandated heresy. Died a martyr.
• The Martyrdom of Pope St. Silverius -- Starved to death on the Island of Palmarola in AD 538
• The epitaph of Pope Saint Hormisdas, written by his son, Pope Saint Silverius
• "I am receiving the reward for my deeds" ~ The Miserable Reign of Pope Vigilius, AD 537-555

What if Belisarius had accepted the Gothic offer to become Western Roman Emperor in AD 540 ~ And why he didn't

A fanciful portrait of Belisarius as Augustus of the Western Roman Empire.

I left off the previous post considering what might have happened if Belisarius had accepted the imperial diadem of the Western Empire when it was offered to him at the end of the first war in Italy in AD 540. Could he have remained on the throne? How would Justinian have reacted? Did Belisarius have the diplomatic and administrative skills to manage the Western Empire? Would his men have remained loyal to him and willing to advance his military goals abroad?

In a best-case scenario that's perhaps not too far-fetched, the answer is yes, Belisarius could certainly have ruled successfully as Western Roman Emperor. The Goths were not only accepting of him, but positively enthusiastic for him to rule them. The core of the Roman army in Italy was made up of his household troops, some 7,000 strong. It's hard to imagine that these elite soldiers would not have remained loyal to the commander who had recruited and trained them. And Belisarius was known to be extraordinarily generous toward his men. Some of the imperial troops and their commanders—men like John the Nephew of Vitalian, Aratius and his brother Narses—would have been reluctant to go along. But future events would prove that these men were all flawed as commanders, unable to work in tandem and largely unloved by the men serving under them. Belisarius would have either received their pledges of loyalty, offered them a one-way ticket back to Constantinople, or quelled them and their forces if they attempted to resist.

For his part, Justinian would not have attacked Italy, certainly not immediately. As mentioned in the previous post, the emperor was at that time facing a very dire threat from Chosroes who had marched the Persian army into the Roman eastern provinces. In fact, by the time Belisarius arrived back in Constantinople, Chosroes had sacked Antioch, the fourth largest metropolis of the empire, leading away tens of thousands of captives which he would settle in a city he built for them called "Better-than-Antioch." Though Justinian would have been rightfully furious over the betrayal of Belisarius, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it until Belisarius's position in Italy was solidified and made permanent. Most likely, Justinian would have instructed his diplomatic corps to make a virtue of necessity, and initiate friendly relations with the new Western Emperor to ensure there was peace on the western frontier while he dealt with the Persian menace.

Where Emperor Belisarius and Justinian would likely have come into conflict was over Africa. Once news reached Africa of Belisarius's accession to the Western Empire, it is not unlikely that the Africans would have declared for Belisarius. After all, Africa was traditionally a Latin-speaking province of the West. Its fertile crops had supplied Rome with wheat for centuries. Beyond that, it had been the brilliant deeds of Belisarius five years before that liberated Africa from the Vandals. More recently, he had again saved Africa from a dangerous mutiny of the garrison army that Justinian had left unpaid. The fact that Solomon, the governor of Africa in AD 540, was once a member of Belisarius's household tends to seal the deal. Once again, if Africa had switched its loyalty to Belisarius in AD 540, there's not much Justinian could have done to prevent it given his preoccupation with the Persians.

Considering his strategic genius, it's not impossible that Belisarius would have been able to extend Roman power into the former provinces, particularly those which retained significant Roman population centers. Given the disparate units that he managed to command successfully in his own household guard: Illyrian and Thracian Romans, Isaurians, Huns, Heruls, etc., he would have had little difficulty commanding the Gothic army. I suspect that the Goths would have been downright eager to learn and master the tactics of the man who had defeated them. With a reconstituted and re-tooled Gothic grand army built around a core of his magnificently trained household troops, Belisarius would have had a force powerful enough to face the Visigoths or Franks in the open field. He likely would have pressed Gothic claims in Septimania—a region of southern Gaul that the Ostrogoths had unwillingly ceded to the treacherous Frankish king, Theudibert, during the Italian war. However, given the prostration of Italy which was still recovering from famine, and the incipient waves of plague which had begun sweeping across the Mediterranean world beginning in AD 542, it's hard to imagine Roman arms making much more progress in the West. Perhaps he would have found some limited success in Spain as Justinian did later.

In Books II and III of my series of novels, I have Belisarius himself offer some counter arguments—conflicts that could have turned the speculative reign of Belisarius into a disaster. In both cases, it is Belisarius's ambitious wife, Antonina, who plays the role of devil's advocate. 

In Glory of the Romans, Antonina tempts Belisarius to view himself in the role of king after his defeat of the Vandals. Belisarius's reaction is forceful and immediate:

Click for more info.

     [Antonina] moved in close to her husband until she whispered in his ear. “Every day, you enter the Vandal palace and sit on the throne to administer Carthage. And every day, I see you and think to myself: what a magnificent king he would make.”
     His eyes wide with horror, Belisarius pulled away from Antonina with a jerk as if she had touched his face with a red-hot iron poker.
     “Antonina,” he finally gasped. “I will forget that such words ever escaped your lips.”
     Undaunted, she closed with him and put her mouth again close to his ear. “Why not? You are a hero in this place. You have a mighty army and a fleet. And Africa is rich! No one could touch us. We would be free!”
     “Free,” he stammered, holding her away from him. “Free you say? You would make me a king while I live, but upon my death, I shall be a slave chained in the lowest depths of hell. Is that the fate you wish for me?”
     Now it was Antonina’s turn to be surprised by Belisarius’s vehemence.
     “I took an oath, wife!” he growled, keeping his voice down lest anyone hear. “Without my oath, what good am I to anyone? An oath-breaker is the most despicable of all men. A betrayer I would be, no better than Judas. And worse, to break an oath made before God? It is unthinkable! May I be struck dead before I ever do such a thing!”
     Antonina stood back aghast. She had gravely miscalculated.
     “Justinian is my lord here on earth, Antonina. I will never betray him. Never! Even if he stripped me of all rank, title, and wealth. Even if he deprived me of my very life! He is the God-protected emperor. Any authority I have comes through him. Were I to defy my emperor, what right would I have to claim the loyalty of the men under me?”
     “Forgive me, husband,” Antonina muttered, ashamed.
     Belisarius continued as if he hadn’t heard her: “I would have no claim on their loyalty. They would defy me as I defied my lord. And they would be right to do so for I would have shown myself to be a contemptible scoundrel and worse—a liar, a betrayer, and a murderer of the truth.”

This scene is meant to portray Belisarius's steadfast loyalty to Justinian as well has his devotion to the truth as a Christian. It should be recalled that in Book I, Belisarius willingly took an oath over the Sacrament of the Altar to be loyal to Justinian unto death. That scene was meant to correspond with the statement from Procopius featured in the previous post to the effect that Belisarius "had been bound by the emperor previously with most solemn oaths."

In this next scene taken from Rome the Eternal, Antonina, attempts to persuade her husband to take the imperial power once he has the Goths on the point of capitulation. Belisarius presents her with his reasons why he will not do so. Considering the later criticisms of Belisarius for his uxoriousness, perhaps these reasons are persuasive, not necessarily because he bows to her will—he doesn't—but because he cares more about what might happen to her than to attaining power and glory:

Click for more info.

     “If you achieve this victory—and let us admit that the situation shows every indication of resolving in our favor—your name will be mentioned among the most brilliant generals in history,” Antonina quipped, as she quaffed her cup of honeyed wine. “Constantine. Pompey. Even Alexander. Have you considered that? Belisarius the Great. It rolls right off the tongue.”
     Belisarius snorted. Though he was reading over reports from his garrison commanders in southern Italy, he was attentive to every word his wife said.
     “What? Is not the conquest of two immensely powerful barbarian nations something worthy of mention in the annals of history? Procopius certainly thinks so.”
     “You know very well that I do not fight for fame or glory,” Belisarius replied, looking up from his reading.
     “Yes, yes. And not for power, wealth, or from an inordinate lust for battle,” Antonina groused impatiently. “I know all that. You fight for Justinian, because he commands you to. But just once, I wish you would fight for yourself. Or, God forbid, for me.”
     “We’ve had this conversation before,” said Belisarius, his face grave. “You already know my answer.”
     “I do. And the answer is ludicrous,” Antonina said, meeting his gaze. “I see how the Gothic ambassadors regard you, how they address you, how they respect you, admire you. These are men who value nothing more than strength, both of character and of the right arm. You have both in abundance. If you but said the word, the nobles of the Goths would cast that feeble dotard Vitiges off his throne and put you...that is, they would follow you. Then, with your biscuit-eaters and the swords of all the Goths behind you, no one in the world could command you.”
     “And as I said to you once before, no honorable man would follow a general who did what you propose,” Belisarius replied with mounting frustration. “What’s more, you do not know what you are asking.”
     “How so?” Antonina said. “I’m not an idiot, you know.”
     “I never suggested that you were, my love,” Belisarius softened. “But let us play out your ambitious scheme a bit. Let us assume that the Goths depose Vitiges and elevate me in his place. And I, shattering all bonds of loyalty, accept their acclamations. And ignoring this act of perfidy, my army supports the claim and allows me to sit in security upon a throne in Italy. Have you thought about what happens next?”
     Antonina smiled, her eyes glistening with avarice. “Yes. You rule brilliantly, and I rule beside you as your consort as Theodora does in Constantinople.”
     “No, my dearest,” Belisarius said, a little sadly. “Within a month, my subjects will notice that I have but one child—a girl-child who resides in the East within easy reach of the Emperor and Empress. You don’t expect that our Joannina will be allowed to leave and join her traitorous parents, do you?”
     “That is of no concern,” Antonina whispered urgently. “I have agents in Byzantium who could spirit her away before anyone in the palace knew.”
     “For their part, the Goths will not accept Photius,” Belisarius continued in the same tone.
     “Why not? He is your son...”
     “They will see him as your son, not mine,” Belisarius declared. “They will demand a natural son to be my heir. For them, blood is of paramount importance. Do you begin to understand? They will encourage, cajole, wheedle, and threaten me to put you away and marry another woman—a younger woman—who will bear me sons. Recall how they have treated Amalasuntha and her son? How they have treated Matasuntha, though she is the granddaughter of Theodoric? Most likely, they will declare Matasuntha’s marriage to Vitiges annulled, seeing how the vows were made under duress. They will urge me to set you aside and marry her. And considering I have already broken my sacred oath to Justinian, sundering my marriage vow would be a comparatively small thing.”
     Antonina smiled. “There is only one problem with your scenario,” she said seductively, moving her lips toward his ear. “Justinian doesn’t love you as I do.” With her perfectly manicured fingers, she caressed his beard. “You will never set me aside. I have no anxiety. What’s more, do not doubt my ability to handle threats to us. I shall work upon the Gothic nobles, playing one off against the other, arranging advantageous marriages for their sons. I have no fear of court intrigue, for if you make me a queen, I will hold to my diadem with a death-grip every bit as tight as that of my mentor, Theodora.”
     Belisarius sighed, not unkindly, and kissed her. Then, rising to his feet, he gave her hand a squeeze and smiled affectionately. “I have no doubt you were born to be a queen, my love.” Collecting his papers, he made his way toward the door. “But unfortunately, you have married a mere soldier.”

So in the end, it seems likely that Belisarius could have had a long and successful reign as Western Roman Emperor—and it's very likely that he knew that the political and military situation was favorable to him—but he refused the imperial diadem for three reasons:

1. Because he would not transgress the solemn oath he took to Justinian.
2. Because he would not transgress the solemn oath he took to his wife. 
3. Because he was a devout Christian and to him, the keeping of oaths was more important than glory in this world.

If the above reasons are correct, Belisarius becomes a rather rare bird in human history. And we can more easily understand why the Gothic nobles were so utterly flabbergasted when Belisarius ended up leaving Ravenna and rejecting the greatest office in human history: Emperor of the Romans.

"They reproached him as a breaker of promises, calling him a slave by his own choice." ~ Belisarius declines the throne of the Western Empire, AD 540

Belisarius hit the Goths with a major plot-twist in AD 540.

Everyone knows that the Western Roman Empire formally ended in AD 476 when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustulus. Or was it AD 480, when the exiled Western Emperor Julius Nepos was assassinated? Or was it in AD 486 when the Roman general Syagrius was defeated by Clovis, King of the Franks, and his outpost of Roman rule in northwestern Gaul was absorbed into the Frankish Kingdom? 

No matter which date is attached to it, the Western Empire had certainly assumed room temperature by AD 493, even if the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople kept up the fiction that the Ostrogoths under Theodoric the Great ruled Italy and Dalmatia as his viceroys. 

But something strange happened about fifty years later in AD 540. A serious effort was made to revive the Western Roman Empire, and if not for the loyalty and devotion of one man, it may have happened.

Regular readers of this blog have seen my frequent posts about war in Italy launched by Justinian beginning in AD 536 (see here, here, here, and here). This war of reconquest was a long, grinding affair which included long sieges of Neapolis (Naples), Rome, Ariminum (Rimini), and Ravenna. The Goths began the war with a significant advantage in both men and morale, only to be methodically worn down by Justinian's Master of Soldiers, Belisarius. By spring of AD 540, Belisarius and his reinforced Roman army had King Vittigis and the remnant of the Gothic forces trapped in Ravenna. 

Considering the scale of the reverses the Goths had suffered, they had no confidence left in their poorly-chosen king, and were ready to talk peace. For his part, Justinian was also ready to talk peace. The Persians under Chosroes I had crossed the frontier and had invaded Roman Mesopotamia, penetrating far into the Empire and threatening the cities of Syria. For Justinian, bringing the war in Italy to a rapid close was his top priority. He therefore sent ambassadors to Ravenna to negotiate an armistice which would leave the Goths in control of Italy north of the River Po, thereby forming a buffer state between Roman Italy to the south of the Po and the bellicose Franks.  

Feeling cheated of his hard-won victory in Italy, and perhaps not fully comprehending the disaster unfolding in the East, Belisarius greeted the peace overtures from Constantinople with dismay. In the words of Procopius who was an eye-witness to events in Italy:

Belisarius, upon hearing this, was moved with vexation, counting it a great calamity that anyone should prevent him from winning the decisive victory of the whole war, when it was possible to do so with no trouble, and leading Vittigis a captive to Byzantium. So when the envoys returned from Ravenna, he refused absolutely to ratify the agreement by his own signature. [Procopius, History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter XXIX]

Belisarius's stubbornness perplexed both the Goths and the Roman ambassadors. Even his own officers were unanimous in their opinion that he should forgo the conquest of all of Italy and follow the Emperor's decision to split the country. For their part, the Goths feared a double-cross and would not accept any treaty unless it was ratified by Belisarius. 

It was at this moment that a most unexpected thing happened: someone in the Gothic court suggested that they not surrender to Justinian, but to Belisarius instead. At the same time, they would declare Belisarius Emperor and seat him upon the vacant throne of the Western Roman Empire. 

Who proposed this audacious plan? Procopius does not say. In Rome the Eternal, I put the idea into the mouth of Aurelius Cassiodorus, largely for dramatic reasons. However, it is possible if not likely that Cassiodorus played a role in this gambit. After all, he was an extremely able man with long experience navigating a dangerous course between the conservative Roman nobility and the sometimes volatile Gothic royal court. He had been Praetorian Prefect under Queen Amalasuntha, King Theodatus, and under Vittigis as well. After AD 538, he drops out of the historical record for about a decade—his official correspondence ceases during this time. His name is not found at all in the histories of Procopius. Given his political prominence, and his stature as an historian in his own right, having completed an extensive history of the Goths in the early 530s, it is certainly strange that Procopius doesn't mention him. Could there have been a bit of professional jealousy or political rivalry at work? After all, for a classicizing historian like Procopius, the greatest insult he could offer someone he disliked was to pretend he didn't exist. 

One gets a strong sense when reading Procopius's account of the Gothic offer of the Purple to Belisarius, that the historian is not telling the whole story—that he is purposely holding back some of the key details. This is likely because the topic itself was fraught with peril. If the taint of disloyalty to the emperor was attached to any individual in Procopius's retelling, it could have disastrous consequences for the person thus exposed. 

In the case of Belisarius, his legendary loyalty to the emperor and his subsequent behavior tended to immunize him from any charges of treachery. So Procopius has no difficulty describing the part in this affair played by his illustrious benefactor.

When the Goths presented their bold proposal to Belisarius, he pretended to accept. Procopius records Belisarius's true feelings as follows:

Click for more info.

Belisarius was quite unwilling to assume the ruling power against the will of the emperor; for he had an extraordinary loathing for the name of tyrant, and furthermore he had, in fact, been bound by the emperor previously with most solemn oaths never during his lifetime to organize a revolution; still, in order to turn the situation before him to the best advantage, he let it appear that he received the proposals of the barbarians gladly. [Procopius, History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter XXIX]

What happened next? The Goths surrendered and Belisarius took all the necessary oaths, holding back only the oath to receive the imperial power which he said he would do when he was in Ravenna with his army. The Gothic envoys did not think this at all odd, as Procopius relates:

The envoys, thinking that he would never reject the kingship, but that he would strive for it above all other things, made not the least hesitation in urging him to come with them into Ravenna. [Procopius, History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter XXIX]

Once inside Ravenna, Belisarius put King Vittigis under guard, disbanded the Gothic army, and proceeded to bring in provisions to feed the starving populace. He did not take any action, ceremonial or otherwise, to proclaim his reign. It wasn't long before the Gothic nobles realized that Belisarius had no intention of ruling as emperor or anything other than Justinian's Master of Soldiers. When Belisarius was summoned back to Constantinople and it became clear that he had every intention of following the emperor's command, the Goths were incensed. In a last ditch effort, they called on Belisarius to uphold his promises, as Procopius writes:

These envoys, upon coming before Belisarius, reminded him of the agreement made with them and reproached him as a breaker of promises, calling him a slave by his own choice, and chiding him because, they said, he did not blush at choosing servitude in place of the kingship. [Procopius, History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter XXX]

Belisarius did not respond as they hoped:

He, contrary to their expectations, refused them outright saying that never, while the emperor Justinian lived, would Belisarius usurp the title of king. [Procopius, History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter XXX]

Soon after this confrontation, Belisarius left Italy for Constantinople. Shortly thereafter, the Goths named a new king, Totila, who would be the scourge of Italy for the next decade plus.

19th century woodcut of Belisarius refusing the imperial diadem.

But questions remain. If Belisarius had accepted the diadem of the Western Roman Empire, what would have happened? Could he have remained on the throne? How would Justinian have reacted? Did Belisarius have the political and administrative acumen to rule successfully? Would he have had the military and diplomatic skill to extend Roman power beyond Italy?

Given how long this post has become, I will explore these questions in a separate post.

"Men Are by No Means Wont to Wage War According to the Judgment of their Enemies." ~ Belisarius rejects Gothic surrender terms, March AD 537

"Whoever of you has hopes of setting foot in Rome without a fight is mistaken in his judgment. For as long as Belisarius lives, it is impossible for him to relinquish this city."
~Belisarius to the Gothic envoys in AD 537.

The above quote is taken from The History of the Wars by the late-Roman historian, Procopius of Caesarea. To set the scene, envision the grand Gothic army of over 100,000 mail-clad warriors newly arrived at their camps about the walls of Rome. Within the walls, Belisarius and his paltry force of less than 6,000 men could barely defend a fraction of the total circumference of the immense circuit. The Gothic King, Vitiges, felt that victory was assured. But in order to increase the discomfiture of his opponent, the Goths sent an embassy into the city, hoping to gauge the morale of the Roman citizens, and perhaps turn some of the nobles against Belisarius. They also hold out terms for an armistice if Belisarius would only withdraw his hopelessly outnumbered army from the city.

Procopius writes:

Click here for more info.

Vittigis, King of the Goths, hearing all this from the deserters and desiring to embroil [the Romans] with one another still more, and thinking that in this way the affairs of the Romans would be thrown into great confusion, sent to Belisarius some envoys, among whom was Albis. And when these men came before Belisarius, they spoke as follows in the presence of the Roman senators and all the commanders of the army:

"From of old, general, mankind has made true and proper distinctions in the names they give to things; and one of these distinctions is this—rashness is different from bravery. For rashness, when it takes possession of a man, brings him into danger with discredit, but bravery bestows upon him an adequate prize in reputation for valor. Now one of these two has brought you against us, but which it is you will straightway make clear. For if, on the one hand, you placed your confidence in bravery when you took the field against the Goths, there is ample opportunity, noble sir, for you to do the deeds of a brave man, since you have only to look down from your wall to see the army of the enemy. But if, on the other hand, it was because you were possessed by rashness that you came to attack us, certainly you now repent you of the reckless undertaking. For the opinions of those who have made a desperate venture are wont to undergo a change whenever they find themselves in serious straits. 

"Now, therefore, do not cause the sufferings of these Romans to be prolonged any further, men whom Theoderic fostered in a life not only of soft luxury but also of freedom, and cease your resistance to him who is the master both of the Goths and of the Italians. Is it not monstrous that you should sit in Rome hemmed in as you are and in abject terror of the enemy, while the king of this city passes his time in a fortified camp and inflicts the evils of war upon his own subjects? But we shall give both you and your followers an opportunity to take your departure forthwith in security, retaining all your possessions. For to trample upon those who have learned to take a new view of prudence we consider neither holy nor worthy of the ways of men. And, further, we should gladly ask these Romans what complaints they could have had against the Goths that they betrayed both us and themselves, seeing that up to this time they have enjoyed our kindness, and now are acquainted by experience with the assistance to be expected from you."

The response of Belisarius was, perhaps, not exactly what the Gothic envoys were expecting: 

Thus spoke the envoys. And Belisarius replied as follows: "It is not to rest with you to choose the moment for conference. For men are by no means wont to wage war according to the judgment of their enemies, but it is customary for each one to arrange his own affairs for himself, in whatever manner seems to him best. But I say to you that there will come a time when you will want to hide your heads under the thistles but will find no shelter anywhere. 

"As for Rome, moreover, which we have captured, in holding it we hold nothing which belongs to others, but it was you who trespassed upon this city in former times, though it did not belong to you at all, and now you have given it back, however unwillingly, to its ancient possessors. And whoever of you has hopes of setting foot in Rome without a fight is mistaken in his judgment. For as long as Belisarius lives, it is impossible for him to relinquish this city." 

Such were the words of Belisarius." 

Click for more info.

In Belisarius, Book III: Rome the Eternal, I opted to put this scene into the mouth of Albis, the Gothic envoy, as he described to his king the type of man who opposed them. He concludes his assessment of Belisarius, declaring: "In my opinion, O King, only iron and fire will serve to evict him from Rome." 

To which Vitiges replies: "Then iron and fire is what he will get."

At this early stage of the siege, Vitiges is still brimming with confidence, sure of his ultimate victory but hoping to convince Belisarius to capitulate with a modicum of effort and bloodshed. 

But within a year, the situation had completely turned around.

Though mentioned only once by Procopius, Albis plays a large role in Rome the Eternal as one of the primary strategists of Vitiges, occasionally butting heads but more frequently conspiring with Cassiodorus.

A Review of Cabrini -- A saintly biopic marred by boring Hollywood tropes

Mother Cabrini (played by Cristiana Dell'Anna) receives the reply of
Pope Leo XIII (played by Giancarlo Giannini)

My wife and I went to see Cabrini last night. Given the mixed yet passionate reaction to the film by a variety of folks whose opinions I respect, I was looking forward to it. Having now seen it, I think the mixed reaction is completely appropriate.

My reaction was also mixed, though tending more toward the negative. 

On the positive side, the film had a lot of spoken Italian in it which was fun. It was also well acted and beautifully shot, with a moving soundtrack that reminded me of a cross between The Village and Master and Commander. Though there have been some complaints that Catholic spirituality is not overtly put into the mouth of a Catholic saint (a valid complaint to be sure), Catholic spirituality saturates the background of the film. There are crosses and other Catholic symbols in practically every scene, and several scenes take place in beautiful Catholic churches and buildings. So we end up with some beautiful Catholic settings for a not particularly Catholic film.

The lead role was well played by Cristiana Dell'Anna who provided a convincing likeness of Mother Cabrini. Pope Leo XIII is played sympathetically by Giancarlo Giannini, though I thought he resembled Pope Pius IX more than Leo XIII.

That said, I felt that the film was too dark and brooding for the story of a Catholic saint. The first third of the film is purposely dark, focusing on Mother's illness and all of the "no" answers she receives from the men who are in positions of authority over her. The film does lighten up in spots, but the overall ambience is darkness and obscurity.

What truly drove Mother Cabrini was left largely unexplored. The inferences one must draw from the film are the typical boring Hollywood tropes -- follow your heart; don't let the naysayers get you down; I am woman, hear me roar. The film presents a woman primarily motivated by an altruistic desire to help other Italians. So rather than being driven by the Gospel message of Jesus Christ to take care of the poor, Mother is portrayed, rather, as the celibate CEO of an Italian NGO in America. There is also an insinuation that she is at least partly driven by spite. Every time she faces an obstacle, the Cabrini in the film hears in her head an admonition given early in the film by a patriarchal archbishop: "Stay where you belong." This very worldly urge, rather than any divine inspiration, seems to motivate her to do bold things.

The film also spent considerable time building up the Italian immigrant-as-victim trope. While nativist sentiments were no doubt major obstacles for the first waves of Italian immigrants coming to America, there was another issue at play that the film studiously avoids: the hatred of Catholics by the largely Masonic ruling elite. (This particular angle was effectively brought to the fore in the film For Greater Glory, another imperfect though more inspiring film.) Though forty years after the height of the KnowNothing period when Catholic churches were torched in several cities, there was still a strong antipathy toward Catholics among the upper echelons of American society that persists to this day. While it wasn't long before Italians were accepted as Americans, devout Catholics have never really been. If you need evidence of that, consider the overtly anti-Catholic emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta in 2016, or how our current "Catholic" president's Department of Justice classifies traditional Catholics among potential terrorist groups. 

As other reviewers have pointed out, the filmmakers also managed to turn Mother Cabrini into something of a Mary Sue. Whatever she accomplishes, she does via the force of her own powerful will. She draws her strength not from God nor from the Gospel, but from within herself. That is not a Catholic mentality at all, and I'm sure the real Mother Cabrini would have been horrified at being portrayed that way. This seems to have been done in service to a narrative that is not in keeping with the actual life of the saint.

Finally, the ending of the film was anti-climactic and strange. 

SPOILER ALERT -- stop here if you don't want to read what happens at the end...

In the movie, Mother Cabrini achieves her final victory via political blackmail -- threatening the mayor of New York that she will unleash a negative publicity campaign against him and work to get him defeated in the next election unless he allows her hospital project to go forward. She also indicates that she is willing to help him if he helps her -- a sort of "pay to play" arrangement. The fictitious Mayor Gould (who is portrayed effectively by John Lithgow as a racist political animal) is impressed by Mother's rather savvy tactics and agrees to her terms. I have no idea how much of this scenario is based on reality, but it didn't strike me as a particularly fitting denouement to a biopic of a Catholic saint. 

So overall, I give Cabrini two stars. It's worth watching once, but having now seen it, I have no desire to see it again. Instead, I'll go and read more about The Intense Catholic Spirituality of Mother Cabrini.

The Intense Catholic Spirituality of Mother Cabrini ~ "How grateful we should be to Christianity, which has raised the dignity of woman."

Photo of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini from the frontispiece
of Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini.

Yesterday marked the opening of a new film by Angel Studios — Cabrini — and the film has already generated an impressive amount of buzz. Considering the Catholic content of the film, this is somewhat surprising but in a very good way.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I intend to over the next week. I'm told that local theaters are basically sold-out this weekend.

Of course, nothing produced with religious content is without controversy. Cabrini is being promoted as a sort-of feminist anti-Barbie, which is an interesting tactic. This indicates that the filmmakers are attempting to broaden the audience beyond the Christian core, out to the larger market of pop-culture agnostics and nones. Of course, that tactic will not please everyone, and one of the criticisms of the film that has already emerged is that the feminist angle is played up to the detriment of the spiritual angle. Indeed, it is claimed that the film makes almost no reference to Mother Cabrini's intense spiritual life.

Again, I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't comment on that. If Mother Cabrini's spiritual life is cast into shadow by the film, that is a shame. However, it nevertheless presents a golden opportunity to set the record straight. Anyone who has their curiosity piqued by the film should certainly delve deeper into the life and works of this holy apostle to the Italian immigrants.

Interested viewers might take a look at her letters which may be found in a book from the 1940s entitled Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini: Foundress of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Following is an example which demonstrates how much Mother Cabrini's thoughts were permeated through-and-through by the power of Almighty God and how, for her, every event was an inspiration to advance in the spiritual life.

This charming letter was written from aboard a steamer en route from Paris to New York in 1890, and addressed to "her dear daughters" — the Missionary Sisters of The Sacred Heart, The Alumnae and Students of the Teachers' College in Rome. By this point, Mother and her sisters had been on the water for three days and were encountering rough seas:

Monday, April 21st. 

Here we are; the see-saw has started, moved by the almighty hand of God: willy nilly we have to play the game. Yesterday about five o’clock in the afternoon the sea began to be a real sea. It was not possible to stand on your feet without leaning on something for support. Already five hours have elapsed since Sister Eletta began to pray God to calm the sea. But now, seeing such a frightful spectacle, she is lost for words, and thinks the best thing to do is to go to bed as the other Sisters have done.

I remain firm and always keep on deck. I made them laugh so much that Sister Eletta said she felt almost better. After supper, about six o’clock, I wanted to see the other good Sisters, and, following their example, I began to feel sea-sick. Patience! Twice I was obliged to resign myself to their company.

Sister Assunta looks like a soul full of thoughts and weariness. Sister Giovannina is always laughing, even when she is very sick. Sister Agostina also smiles. Sister Bernardina is just like one dead, so is Sister Battistina! Sister Ignatius tries to endeavour to follow my example, but after a time she has to run for her life, or else stay in the cabin so as not to fall. Of all the passengers on board, both men and women, only six or seven come to the table.

It is dreadful if we do not try to resist this sickness; the best plan is to stay on deck; even if it rains, it is better to remain in the open. Last night, I stayed until after midnight, partly dressed (because I believed a storm was threatening), so as to be ready to save myself and all; but the good God is continually watching over His Spouses. The great swing subsided though the gale beat all round us.

I rose early this morning to go on deck to view the wonderful spectacle. Oh! how beautiful is the sea in its great motion! How the waves swell and foam! Enchanting! The wind is, however, favourable, and the boat goes so quickly, it seems to fly. If you could only see the waves! None of us could stay at the stern because the waves swept over the vessel at every moment. At the bows it is not so bad, and, stretched in an armchair, I can write fairly well. A single wave could submerge all, but He Who has created the sea and has commanded it to rise like mountains, would not permit His beloved creatures to be drowned, much less His loving Spouses.

God loved us before He created the sea; nay, He created the sea itself for our use and pleasure. He has chosen us for His Spouses, and we have answered His call, attracted by His infinite lovableness. Let us remain, my daughters, entirely subject to Him, conquered by His love; and let us run swiftly in His footsteps. The good God has perpetually loved us with the love of predilection, so let us love Him and serve Him with joy during the few days of our life.

If you were all here with me, dear daughters, to cross the immense ocean, you would exclaim, ‘‘Oh, how great and loving is God in all His works!'’ But the ocean of graces, oh, my daughters, that the good Jesus pours down upon us, in every instant of our life, is immensely superior to anything in nature. All natural splendours are eclipsed by the abundance of riches which God showers upon His beloved Spouses.

Let us venerate and love, then, our excellent state, and let us examine ourselves frequently and remove all defects that are unbecoming the Virgins of Christ, so that our Beloved may quickly introduce us into the Holy of Holies and plant charity in our souls. [Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, pages 5-6]

Here is an excerpt from another letter by St. Frances Cabrini, deeply imbued with the wisdom of one who knows that children must be brought up in virtue. This one addressed to the students of the Teachers' College in Rome, and dated May 1904:

How great, noble, exalted, is the mission you are called to accomplish in this world! To you. Our Divine Lord addressed the words He spoke to His Apostles one day, "I have chosen you so that you will bear fruit and that your fruit will remain.”

Reflect a little with me on the predilection of God for you in this call, "I have chosen you," not "you have chosen Me." In fact, He did not wish that during your studies you should be exposed to the poisonous atmosphere of the world. He has drawn you into His own House, so that you could breathe into your souls its salubrious atmosphere. There you prepare yourselves for the mission you are to fulfill in Society.

To many of you, already, we may say, despite our great regret at parting from you, "Go and bear fruit," for you are already fortified against the world’s dangers by the solid instruction you have received. But what fruit will you bear? However small your experience is of the world, still you see that the multitude is insensible, forgetting God. But how much good cannot a wise teacher do to repair this, the greatest of evils, if to her mental culture and her intellectual gifts she adds that of a soul solidly founded and frankly Christian and religious.

She knows as the immortal and lamented Pontiff Leo XIII, said that we cannot renew Solomon’s judgment on the child by the cruel and unjust separation of the intellect and the will. She knows that while she cultivates her mind, she is bound to direct her will at acquiring virtue to obtain the last end. She knows that those who have not received in their early years the impressions of Religion, grow up without having even the slightest idea of those high truths which alone can awaken in them the love of virtue and the control of the passions. She then makes her sweet influence felt in the school, aided by the grace of the Holy Ghost, and silently mould those young hearts which, soft as wax, are ready to receive impressions. Here you perceive the great responsibility of those who neglect their duty, for it is difficult to eradicate these early impressions.

This is the fruit which you are called upon to bring forth in the Church, with this difference, however, that whilst a simple teacher has only to instruct her class of children, you have the responsibility of educating the future teachers, and consequently have a wider field wherein to sow your seed, which will thus spread more rapidly and bear more fruit. As such you are associated with the great work of the Christian Apostolate. Thus you enter the ranks of those generous champions who at the command of our great Leader and His Vicar on earth, fight bravely to restore the world to Christ.

How far the world is from Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, is better understood by one who has to travel so to speak, from one end of the world to the other. [Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, pages 239-240]

This letter also contains a brief reflection on the history and nature of womanhood which, given the film's seeming focus on feminism, it seems appropriate to quote. In this reflection, Mother Cabrini begins with her observation of the status of women among the Coeur d’Alenes, an American Indian tribe of eastern Washington State, as follows:

The Indian woman, as in all those nations which have not received the light of faith, has to work while the man quietly smokes his pipe. The poor woman and mother of many little ones, who are too small to stand, is forced to tie her offspring round her waist in a sack, and in this unconventional way has to do her washing. If the baby cries, she moves it with a shrug of her shoulders and thus quiets it. This is the way the Indian baby is fondled.

See how grateful we should be to Christianity, which has raised the dignity of woman, re-establishing her rights, unknown to the pagan nations. Until Mary Immaculate, the Woman by excellence, foretold by the prophets, sighed for by the patriarchs, desired by the people. Dawn of the Sun of Justice, had appeared on earth— what was woman?

But Mary appeared, this new Eve, true Mother of the Living, elected by God to be the Co-Redemptrix of the human race, and a new era arose for woman. She is no longer a slave, but equal to man; no longer a servant, but mistress within her domestic walls; no longer the object of disdain and contempt, but raised to the dignity of Mother and Educator, on whose knee generations are built up. [Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, pages 245]

This was the spirituality of Mother Cabrini. Nowhere near the destructive creed of modern feminism, but hewing closely to the ideal of Christian womanhood.