Friedrich Engel-Janosi, Die diplomatische Mission Ludwig von Pastors beim Heiligen Stuhle, 1920–1928

Engel-Janosi’s 1968 Abhandlung is a monographic archival study with a documentary appendix. It examines Ludwig von Pastor’s Austrian mission at the Holy See from 1920 to 1928 and uses his dispatches to read Vatican politics after the Habsburg collapse. Its thesis is that Pastor’s fame as historian of the papacy gave the poor new republic a Roman weight out of proportion to its power: scholarly prestige, curial trust, and diplomatic office fused.

Es heißt nicht ein unbedingter Lobredner des Historikers der Päpste werden, wenn man feststellt, daß die kleine um ihre Existenz ringende Republik Österreich sich in Ludwig von Pastor einer Persönlichkeit versichert hatte, deren eigenes Ansehen der Stellung und Reputation ihres Amtes merkbar zu Hilfe kam.

English translation: It does not mean becoming an unqualified eulogist of the historian of the popes to observe that the small Republic of Austria, struggling for its very existence, had secured in Ludwig von Pastor a personality whose own standing noticeably came to the aid of the position and reputation of his office.

This is the study’s core conceptual move. Engel-Janosi treats diplomacy not only as formal representation but as access, tone, and remembered authority. Pastor’s reports matter because Gasparri and other curial figures spoke to him with unusual freedom; the envoy’s private credibility made his papers a privileged source for Vatican thinking.

Gasparris Ausruf, daß der Historiker der Päpste als österreichischer Vertreter „aggraditissimo“ sein werde, war keine Phrase und ihre Gespräche dürften hinausgegangen sein über die Grenzen der Unterhaltungen mit den anderen Missionschefs.

English translation: Gasparri's exclamation that the historian of the popes would be "most welcome" (aggraditissimo) as the Austrian representative was no mere phrase, and their conversations are likely to have gone well beyond the limits of the discussions held with the other heads of mission.

The essay proceeds chronologically but by recurring problems: the “violent” peace of Versailles and St. Germain, Hungarian legitimism, Austria’s survival, the Roman Question, Italy and Fascism, Franco-German tension, Locarno, Action française, Pacelli’s concordat diplomacy, South Tyrol, the Anima, and the Anschluss. Across these themes the Holy See appears as patient, conservative, intensely political, and deeply suspicious of the postwar settlement. For Austria, however, Vatican realism begins less with restoration than with subsistence.

Der Vatikan sah hier seine Aufgabe darin, alles was in seinen Kräften stand, zu tun, um die entsetzliche Not zu mindern.

English translation: The Vatican saw its task here in doing everything within its power to alleviate the appalling distress.

Engel-Janosi’s portrait of Pius XI is sharpened by contrast with Gasparri. Pastor records admiration for strong authority, especially Seipel’s, but the author resists reducing papal policy to the secretary of state’s instincts. Pius XI appears learned, controlled, and autonomous, willing to value order while refusing ecclesiastical dependence on any modern state.

Der Österreicher betont die Vorsicht und die Selbständigkeit dieses Papstes, auf den niemand, selbst kaum sein Staatssekretär Einfluß auszuüben scheint.

English translation: The Austrian emphasizes the caution and the independence of this Pope, upon whom no one, scarcely even his Secretary of State, appears to exert influence.

This distinction governs the treatment of Fascist Italy. Gasparri could see Mussolini as a bulwark against Bolshevism and disorder, and the hope of settling the Roman Question made that judgment consequential. Yet Engel-Janosi insists on separating Mussolini from Fascism, and Gasparri’s search for order from Pius XI’s defense of the Church’s freedom.

Pastor deutet mehr an, als daß er es ausdrücklich formulierte: der Kardinalstaatssekretär habe sich in seinem Suchen nach Bewegungen, die im politischen und sozialen Leben Ordnung erstrebten, dem Fascismus gegenüber Illusionen hingegeben; dies sei beim Papst sicher nicht der Fall gewesen und man täusche sich gründlich, wenn man annehme, Pius XI. werde dem Fascismus gegenüber Schwäche zeigen.

English translation: Pastor suggests more than he expressly states: that the Cardinal Secretary of State, in his search for movements striving for order in political and social life, had indulged in illusions with respect to Fascism; this was certainly not the case with the Pope, and one would be gravely mistaken in assuming that Pius XI would show weakness toward Fascism.

The late sections show Pastor operating in ambiguities. South Tyrol forced the Holy See to avoid appearing either anti-Italian or complicit in Italianization; the Anima dispute displayed Pastor’s practical skill in defending Austrian ecclesiastical privileges against German claims; the Anschluss appears not as fixed Vatican doctrine but as an unsettled question, with possible Catholic gains weighed against political danger. The appendix, reproducing Seipel’s March 1928 materials on Pius XI’s South Tyrol declaration, shows how cautious papal language could still have explosive diplomatic resonance.

Die Deklaration des Heiligen Vaters, wie sie uns bekanntgegeben worden ist, wird hier unter den Diplomaten als eine Sensation gewertet, das hörte ich heute beim Diplomatenempfang wiederholt.

English translation: The Holy Father's declaration, as it has been communicated to us, is regarded here among the diplomats as a sensation; I heard this repeatedly today at the diplomatic reception.

The work’s relevance lies in making Pastor’s mission a lens for the interwar Vatican before 1929: anti-Versailles, pro-order, wary of nationalism, tempted by “providential” men, yet unwilling to surrender ecclesial sovereignty. Its final image of Pastor confirms the main argument: personal authority could give diminished Austria a disproportionately strong Roman voice.