SANFEDISMO. — The Jacobin invasion of 1796–98 was far from arousing in Italy the universal enthusiasm of which liberal historiography tells fanciful tales.
If the “liberty” brought at the point of French bayonets proved welcome to certain bourgeois circles, steeped in rationalism and Voltairianism, the aristocratic classes and, still more, the popular masses rose up in unison to defend the “thrones and altars” threatened by the Revolution from beyond the Alps: hence the Piedmontese uprisings even after the authorities had capitulated and the royal family had been forced to take refuge in Sardinia; the heroic resistance of the Marcheschi of the Brescia valleys (Val Trompia and Val Sabbia), faithful to the Republic of S. Marco; the bloody episode of the Veronese Easters; the exploits of the Insurgents of Tuscany, the Tolfa mountains, the Marches — who hastened with their capimassa under the banners of General Lahoz and wrested the stronghold of Ancona back from the French — and of the Abruzzi. Particularly imposing was this “reaction” — as it was called — in the Kingdom of Naples, where the Lazzari allowed themselves to be massacred in the streets of the capital by the French and their supporters, even after the King’s flight to Sicily, and where the brief life of the Parthenopean Republic was constantly thrown into difficulties by the revolt of the provinces, devoted to monarchy and religion. It was these rebels in the South against the republican institutions who first called themselves “Sanfedists,” that is, fighters for the Holy Faith; and it was chiefly upon them that Cardinal Fabrizio Ruffo relied to strengthen his army, which, advancing from far-off Calabria, reached victorious as far as the walls of Naples; and it was precisely to Ruffo and his sanfedists that the republican government surrendered, with the honorable capitulation unfortunately violated by Nelson.
The mournful events that followed are not attributable, as everyone knows, to the cardinal, but were wrongly charged to him, whereas, if blame is to be assigned at all, it belongs solely to the lack of discernment shown in admitting into his ranks entire bands of brigands eager to rebuild their lives, who did not fail to perpetrate crimes no less deplorable than those committed by the so-called “liberators.” It is therefore necessary to distinguish clearly the well-defined responsibilities of individuals and groups, in order to restore to the s. its original and authentic merit: that of having represented, in southern Italy, the spontaneous resistance of deeply Catholic populations devoted to the legitimate authorities against the abuses, violence, and de-Christianizing activity of a government established and supported by foreigners, in contempt of all local political and religious traditions. This is attested by the unprejudiced witness Vincenzo Cuoco (cf. Saggio storico sulla rivolta, napolet. del 1799, especially chaps. 16, 19, and 21). With calm assessment, W. Maturi (Enc. Ital., XXX. 639) wrote that the s. constitutes an “Italian Vendée, against a social background more imposing” than that of the French one, an expression of patriotism of a local rather than national character, but none the less deserving of admiration. Liberal historians, interested in casting the s. in a bad light, arbitrarily extended the original meaning of the term, including within it also the later followers of the restored Bourbon, morally co-responsible for the ruthless reaction, and, in general, all supporters of absolutism in the southern part of the Peninsula. At a later period, the adherents of certain secret societies — whose activities, moreover, are poorly documented — also called themselves Sanfedists; these societies were formed in the Papal States immediately after 1815 in opposition to the Carbonari sects. Their action, however, was disavowed by the government for obvious reasons of expediency and justice.