Manifestly obvious Francophilia

Charles Xuereb continually reminds us of his thesis. He seems to regard this as some form of holy writ which we should all accept without question (October 10).

I have not had the pleasure of reading his thesis but I have read his most fascinating book which is based on the said thesis. In his book, he does seem to take some of his references at face value, as long as they are pro-French, anti-Maltese, anti-clerical and/or anti-British. In my opinion, his scholarly approach is vitiated by an unnecessary and manifestly obvious Francophilia. His reference to the French stay in Malta as an “interlude” rather than a brutal occupation reveals his underlying prejudice. Let me give readers just three examples of this prejudice.

On page 257 of his book, when dealing with the earlier Maltese attack on French troops in Rabat before the siege of Mdina, Xuereb quotes Henry Seddall’s work Malta Past and Present (1870) where the author tells us that, as soon as Masson (the French officer in charge) had thrown his sword to the ground to show that he had no quarrel with them, he was mercilessly massacred by an angry mob led by Emanuele Vitale.

I have absolutely no idea where Seddall got this information of Vitale’s role in Masson’s killing from. I have not encountered it anywhere else. I do note, however, that, on page 222 of his book, Xuereb accuses Seddall of exaggeration when dealing with the accusation that the French robbed the Maltese churches of their silver. So, is Seddall a genuine source or isn’t he?

With reference to the general slaughter of French troops after the taking of Mdina by the Maltese patriots, Xuereb does not mention the fact that, as the necessary formalities of the French surrender were being conducted, some French soldiers opened fire from behind a parapet killing four Maltese patriots. 

This unnecessary act of bad faith on the part of the French enraged the Maltese and goes a long way to explain the reason for the ‘massacre’. A bit of objective context by Xuereb about this incident would have been welcome.

But I now must come to Xuereb’s real pièce de resistance, where on pages 96, 206 and 210 of his book, he repeats the myth of the Maltese eating the livers of their French victims. He presents no factual references to support this melodramatic assertion. He simply quotes Gaetano Gauci’s Giornale della presa di Malta e Gozo, dalla Republica francese, e della susseguente ribellione de’ Contadini.

The author of this short work (46 pages) published in 1899, that is, over 100 years after the purported event, refrains from telling us his own specific source(s) for this bizarre incident. However, Baron V. Azopardi, who wrote his own impressive work, Giornale della presa di Malta e Gozo, dalla Republica francese, e della susseguente rivoluzione nella campagna (1836), only about 35 years after the purported incident, makes no mention of it anywhere. 

If the Maltese patriots had indeed devoured the livers of their dead French enemies, surely someone would have mentioned this to Azopardi who would undoubtedly have mentioned it in his own book, written relatively soon after this event was supposed to have happened and at a time when many people still alive might have actually witnessed it.

Reading Gauci’s work, one quickly forms the impression that it is nothing more than a totally biased anti-Maltese, anti-British, somewhat anti-clerical, pro-French diatribe and, unlike Azopardi’s work, certainly not a reliable scholarly source. Gauci repeatedly dismisses the Maltese patriots as a bunch of “villani”.

This word has a double-meaning as opposed to the more specific “contadini” (as used in the book’s title) or ‘campagnuoli’, either of which non-controversial synonyms could have easily been used instead. That the

author opted for the rather derogatory “villani” tells us a lot about his sympathies.

In my opinion, this ‘liver-eating incident’ is yet another myth interwoven into the rich tapestry of our nation’s history.  However, Xuereb takes it as gospel to further denigrate our heroic ancestors. 

Charles Gauci, Chief Herald of Arms of Malta – Sannat

Monocausal explanations and populist conclusions

It is amusing to read letters from the old school taking me to task on a complex episode in Maltese history such as that of the peasants’ uprising of 1798 against the local government under the French, often lifting sentences from past narratives such as that of Bosredon Ransijat’s Blocus (October 10).

Since it is almost impossible to give monocausal explanations to any historical episode, arguing an outcome without contextualising it only leads to populist conclusions.

Serious scholars publish researched academic tomes covering points of view backed by primary and other sources.

Esteemed readers of this paper would appreciate to know that Ransijat blamed Michel Régnaud, his predecessor as government commissioner, for lack of diplomacy and sensitivity towards the medieval Maltese society that had just been catapulted into a modern era.

Contemporary letters sent to Bonaparte in Egypt to this effect bear witness. Ransijat had spent 35 years on the island, during most of which he was the Order’s minister for finance.

He declares to have the Maltese interests “close to my heart”. His irritation with the Paris administration grew after returning to France.

He felt that, after abandoning the Order for the Republic and surviving a two-year siege in Valletta, his efforts were never appreciated enough. 

For the record, recent research concludes that the death of 20,000 Maltese    claimed by the peasants’ leaders after the blockade had been exaggerated to collect more war-damage compensation from the British colonial authorities.

It seems that no more than half that number perished, mostly due to malnutrition and fatigue (vide appendix 2 in my publication on the period).

Finally, trapped in this ping-pong correspondence, may I – for the sake of making the point – refer to Ransijat’s diary for April 20, 1800: “The French… treat the Maltese exceptionally well and the Maltese should be grateful for this.” He shared the hope that “one day, they (the Maltese) will see the light or that a good government manages to cure them from their superstitions”.

Charles Xuereb – Sliema

Challenging roads

I read Claire Bonello’s article ‘Government’s tunnel vision’ (October 10) and cracked up at the part to dissuade people from using cars.

The picture (left) shows a standard road in Xagħra.

I have replaced eight tyres in 14 months, now even a wheel. Forget the tunnel, forget the metro – sort out all our roads.

Roads in Malta are being upgraded though in their initial state were far better than anything we have in Gozo.

Kevin Hodkin – Xagħra

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.