This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]On: 05 October 2014, At: 09:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Modern Italian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmis20

Italy on the 150th anniversary ofnational unityRoland Sartiaa University of Massachusetts, AmherstPublished online: 11 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Roland Sarti (2014) Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity,Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 19:1, 34-43, DOI: 10.1080/1354571X.2014.851966

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2014.851966

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 2014 Vol. 19, No. 1, 34–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2014.851966

INTRODUCTION

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

Roland Sarti

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Abstract

The five papers that follow were originally presented at the American Historical Association 127th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, January 2013 in a panel ‘Italy on the 150th Centenary of National Unification: Issues of Unity and Identity’, sponsored by the Society for Italian Historical Studies and hosted by the American Historical Association. Following the introduction and comments by Roland Sarti, the papers explore the celebrations of the anniversary (Giuliana Limiti and Mario Di Napoli), the South and its place in the anniversary (John Davis), Church and State (Frank J Coppa) and the international contexts of the celebrations (Giuseppe Monsagrati).

Keywords Italy, Risorgimento, Unification, Catholic Church, South.

National anniversaries like the Centocinquantenario, the 150th anniversary of Italian national unification, lend themselves to collective celebration and reflection. There was much of both on this occasion as Italians came together to examine their national past, but there was also much contentious debate of the kind that one associates with political infighting rather than with moments of national rejoicing. It was with this apparent paradox in mind that a group of scholars came together on 5 January 2013 in New Orleans to discuss what had recently transpired in Italy, where the year-long celebrations had just been brought to a close. The panel was sponsored by the Society for Italian Historical Studies and was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Historical Association.

Coming so soon after the conclusion of the anniversary observances, the discussion may have been somewhat premature, for there is much that remains to be clarified about the preparatory political transactions that took place, the motivations and intentions of the various players, the framing of guidelines, and their implementation. These issues will no doubt be discussed in the future with more documentation and with the benefit of a broader perspective. We, the members of the panel, thought it worthwhile to contribute to the discussion while memories of the events are still fresh, and are able to take advantage of the

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

fact that some of the panelists had been active as participants and organizers in the celebrations.

The papers presented here are essentially the same as those presented in New Orleans. The difference is in the opening and closing parts of the panel, for while in New Orleans the introduction and concluding comments were separate, as is customary for such events, here they are merged for the sake of brevity and unity. Missing entirely are the greetings spoken by Professor Giuliana Limiti in her capacity as president of the Mazzini Society and the lively discussion involving panellists and members of the audience which followed the presentation of the papers. The four papers fall evenly into two broad categories: the first two speak directly to the character of the celebrations, while the second two address respectively the issue of the often troubled relations between Church and State in Italy and the even more persistent Problem or Question of the South. Since both issues are directly related to the manner in which national unification was achieved, a consideration of their role involves an assessment of how well the Italian state has managed its internal affairs and instilled, or failed to instil, a sense of shared identity and unity among Italians in the course of its history.

It should come as no surprise that controversy has been no stranger to the observances of this national anniversary, given the nature of the occasion and context in which it took shape. Like the Centenario of 1961 and the Cinquantenario of 1911, the Centocinquantenario of 2011 was a one-time event that required special legislation, much advanced planning, and considerable commitment of resources. It could not be taken more or less in stride, like any regularly recurring national holiday, such as the Festa della Liberazione celebrated every 25 April to commemorate the liberation of the country at the end of World War II and the role of the Resistance, or the Festa della Repubblica celebrated every 2 June to commemorate the founding of the Italian Republic on that day in 1946. These two anniversaries in particular are securely enshrined in public ritual, require no special legislation because they recur automatically, and have acquired a political profile that offends few and pleases

1 many. Controversy was in the air from the start. Since memories are still fresh, there

is no need to go into details about the country’s political scandals and economic hardships that made headlines as the planning proceeded. It surely aggravated matters that the celebrations coincided with the start of an exceptionally hard-fought and divisive electoral campaign. Given the contentious background, it is to be wondered that the level of protest was as contained as it was. Expressions of discontent and minor acts of defiance were limited to individuals or small groups that wanted to make political statements, and remained within the bounds of civility. Politicians and others who had never been reticent about expressing their dislike of the Italian state chose for the most part to remain silent, or made anodyne statements that did little harm. There was certainly nothing even remotely comparable to the turmoil and street demonstrations of the 1970s and

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Roland Sarti

1980s that really did threaten the stability of the state, and this in spite of the fact that in 2011 the country faced a multi-faceted crisis that touched the lives of all Italians. Perhaps it was the urgency of so many other problems requiring immediate attention, and the presence in power as of November 2011 of the non-political government of Prime Minister Mario Monti, that helped to defuse the protests. Whatever the reasons, the many initiatives that came to fruition during the year attest to the depth and breadth of the effort made to come to terms with 150 years of national history.

What was most effective was the unqualified endorsement of President Giorgio Napolitano, the then 86-year-old President of the Republic who, putting his personal credibility and the prestige of his office on the line, and fulfilling with obvious conviction his constitutional duty to protect the unity of the nation, drove home the message that the anniversary marked a moment when Italians should come together. On countless occasions he reiterated the message that the Italian people had always rallied in times of crisis in the spirit of unity: ‘La sfida non risolta nel passato e ancora piu scottante nel tempo presente e riformare il paese tenendolo unito.’2 Addressing parliament on 17 March 2011, he spoke of the reserves of confidence and trust that could be summoned by remembering the nation’s history: ‘La carica di fiducia che ci e indispensabile dobbiamo ricavarla dalla esperienza del superamento di molte ardue prove nel corso della nostra storia nazionale e dal consolidamento di punti di riferimento fondamentali per il nostro futuro’ (Napolitano 2011, 134).3

The president’s call did not entirely dispel the sense of unease gripping the country. That sense is expressed perhaps most poignantly in the one work of history written with the Centocinquantenario specifically in mind. It is a book written by a historian who, like the President of the Republic, comes from the ranks of what is now called the Old Left, which was not known for endorsing patriotism. Lucio Villari’s (2009) Bella e perduta (Beautiful and Lost) packs a strong emotional message that harks back to the promises of the Risorgimento. The title quotes from Verdi’s famous Nabucco chorus, in which the Jews of biblical times lament the loss of their country. However, while Villari’s message is wistful, it is not a lamentation, but rather a ‘richiamo a una Italia non perduta, a un’Italia non delusa che ci piace abitare oggi nella liberta, da cittadini consapevoli e responsabili’ (2009, xiii).4 For Villari, the Italy that came out of the Risorgimento has yielded good fruits after all.

The papers presented here do not minimize the seriousness of the problems confronting Italy today, which were aggravated after the seminar took place by the results of the national elections held in February 2013. The very comparisons that several of the speakers draw between the celebrations of the Centocinquantenario and the anniversaries of 1911 and 1961 underscore the gravity of today’s challenges. The celebrations of 1911 could look back on the undeniable progress made in the first fifty years of national unification, during which Italy had acquired international status and respectability, and was about to undertake its first successful colonial venture. Industrial manufacturing

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

had grown, the currency was stable, the standard of living had risen, literacy was on the rise, and a major electoral reform was in the works. No-one called for the dissolution of the state, not even the critics on the socialist left, who, for all their complaints against the bourgeois order, did acknowledge that national unity had been a step in the right direction. No event reflected the mood of optimism more than the inauguration of the imposing monument to Victor Emmanuel II, the Vittoriano, or the Altare della Patria, inaugurated on 4 June 1911. Its architectural exuberance and theatricality are not inappropriate, historically speaking, for its very monumentality speaks to the hopes and aspirations of a young nation looking to the future.5

The context of the 1961 celebrations was quite different; if not quite as triumphant as that of 1911, it was nevertheless heartening. Memories of the war were fading, the transition from monarchy to republic had been achieved without jolts, and the young republic still nurtured expectations of meaningful change. The country, comfortably settled in the Western alliance, had scaled down aspirations of great power status to the more realistic and manageable goal of being a regional power. The opening to the Left promised an era of political cooperation and inclusiveness. The preceding decade had experienced the so-called Economic Miracle that ushered in the consumer economy; for the first time in the country’s history millions of people had access to goods and pastimes barely imaginable to older generations of Italians. In the 1961 observances, politics took second place to the economy. It was therefore fitting that Turin should play the most prominent role in the festivities in spite of its monarchist traditions. The centrepiece was the ‘Mostra storica’ that occupied several buildings in the city that had been the first capital of Italy, including the historic Palazzo Carignano, where the first Italian parliament had met in March 1861. FIAT and the Agnelli family were much in evidence, but the role of labour was illustrated by a pavilion that featured the contributions of workers to the national wellbeing. The gap between north and south persisted, but southern migration to the industrial cities of the north and public investments earmarked for the south promised at least a less uneven distribution of wealth.6

It should be apparent, however, that the less sanguine atmosphere of 2011 did not materialize out of nowhere; indeed, most of the problems that caught public attention that year had been in the making for decades. Gradual, cumulative cultural transformations had steadily altered the landscape and changed perceptions of the nation’s past. The new trends did not take kindly to a past narrated in terms of heroic ideals and actions, and preferred to neglect or dismiss the inspirational figures and events that had fired the imagination of earlier generations. Historical writing reflected, and in its own way contributed to, the prevailing mood of disenchantment that has gained favour in Italy and elsewhere, particularly since the 1980s.

This new historiography has much to recommend it. It benefits from a cross-pollination of ideas of varying geographical and ideological provenance and incorporates interpretative canons and insights drawn from literary criticism and

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Roland Sarti

the social sciences. At its best it broadens and deepens our understanding of the past. But there is also another side to it that many find deeply disquieting. With regard to the history of the Risorgimento, on the plus side it has found new ways to connect the national movement to the fabric of the rest of society, which is no small accomplishment.7 But its tendency to ‘deconstruct’ the past, to transform (and reduce) ideas and ideals into ‘inventions’, ‘myths’, ‘images’, and ‘constructs’ – all buzzwords of the new history – challenges the very notion of an objective reality that has been at the heart of traditional historical writing. It is a negative tendency more appropriate to what Mazzini called the culture of criticism that aims to tear down, rather than the culture of affirmation that aims to build up. It smacks of ‘narratives’ constructed for the benefit of interested parties rather than of ideals that can be widely shared. A cultural landscape so defined does not make for joyful national celebrations.

Another type of literature has gained currency in roughly the same period of time. It is not necessarily the offshoot of the new historiography, but it borrows heavily from its vocabulary and conceptual apparatus, with far more deconstructive and destructive consequences for national unity. It is unabashedly hostile towards the national state, plays to the regionalist and separatist sentiments of both north and south, romanticizes the pre-unification states as models of popular (or populist) government, and regards the Risorgimento as an act of usurpation, a conquista regia by the state that had the strongest army, the greatest appetite for territory, the cleverest diplomacy, and the fewest moral scruples, at the expense of legitimate but weaker states. It spares no one situated on what was normally regarded as the right side of history, not even the national hero Garibaldi, whom it denigrates, in the words of one of its more egregious examples, as ‘l’eroe inventato di una patria inventata’ (Oneto 2006, 310).8

This climate of desecration was in the air well before the start of the 150th anniversary, which consequently played out in an atmosphere of crisis that was simultaneously economic, political, and cultural.

It should come as no surprise that, as more than one paper points out, the celebrations evoked mixed feelings and ran into the opposition of particular political parties sensitive to the moods of the moment. Unlike Liberation Day or the Day of the Republic, the 150th anniversary lacked sponsors with a strong political stake in the outcome. It was significant in part because it marked a historic turnaround, whereby the political Right, traditionally the champion of the idea of nationality, was now its most outspoken critic owing to the presence within its ranks of the separatist Lega Nord; while the Left, formerly not known for patriotic fervour and inclined to dismiss patriotism as a bourgeois invention, was now far more disposed to speak up for national unity and community spirit.

The troubled context just described hardly needs elaboration since it is still present and has in fact worsened since the elections of February 2013, but it must be kept in mind to appreciate the difficulties that faced the governments and officials responsible for planning and carrying out the celebrations of the 150th anniversary. Planning began with the appointment on 24 April 2007 of a

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

cabinet-level Comitato Interministeriale charged with formulating general guidelines, supervising their implementation, and working with regional and local administrations to give the celebrations a broad national character. On 15 June of the same year, the Council of Ministers authorized the formation of the Struttura or Unita Tecnica di Missione, charged with implementing the directives, proposing and soliciting initiatives, and providing the necessary support to carry them out. On 23 November the Council also authorized the appointment of a Comitato dei Garanti composed of experts who would monitor the initiatives proposed by the higher bodies, but that in practice played a much more active role. It operated first under the presidency of former President of the Republic Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, who was succeeded in May 2010 by former Prime Minister Giuliano Amato. The appointment of two such prestigious figures as heads of the planning committee can perhaps be taken as a sign of commitment and good intentions on the part of the political leadership, many of whose members nevertheless kept a discreet distance from the celebrations. In the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a strong advocate appeared in the person of Undersecretary Gianni Letta, the prime minister’s right-hand man.

A ceremony held at Quarto on 5 May 2010 to commemorate the sailing of Garibaldi’s famed expedition of the Thousand from that spot on 5–6 May 1860 marked the official opening of the celebrations. By 9 July 2010, the Comitato dei Garanti was fully staffed and functioning, with twenty-eight appointed members drawn from different parts of the cultural spectrum. They were charged with making sure that the celebrations would be inclusive, cover the entire 150 years of national history, have ‘a pluralistic political and cultural orientation’, and that no single city, event, phase of history, ideological or political viewpoint would dominate the observances. The focus was to be broadly cultural because

La cultura e’ il fulcro della nostra identita’ nazionale; identita’ che ha le sue radici nella formazione della lingua italiana e che, negli ultimi due secoli, si e’ sviluppata in una continuita’ di ideali e di valori dal Risorgimento alla Resistenza, alla Costituzione repubblicana.9

There was to be no glossing over of troublesome issues like the Questione del

Mezzogiorno (specifically mentioned), and presumably of other equally sensitive issues that were not mentioned, like relations between Church and State, fascism, terrorism and organized crime. In October 2010, parliament designated 17 March 2011 as the Giornata dell’Unita, a one-time-only national holiday to commemorate parliament’s bestowing of the title of King of Italy on Victor Emmanuel II and his successors on that day in 1861. The decision was criticized on the ground that it gaveunwarranted prominence to the role of theHouseof Savoy, to thedetriment of those republican currents that were closer to the people; but the complaint was qualified and muted by the implicit acknowledgment that it was parliament, the representative of the popularwill, that had symbolically placed the crownofUnited Italy on the king’s head (Di Napoli 2010)

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Roland Sarti

The joint presentation by Professors Di Napoli and Limiti illuminates first of all the different contexts in which the celebrations of 1911, 1961 and 2011 took place, and elaborates on the unique political circumstances of the Centocinquantenario. The authors note that the relative silence and inactivity on the part of the political leadership were largely compensated by the very visible and active role played by the President of the Republic and by the administrative agencies of government. Among the latter, the already-

mentioned Unita Tecnica di Missione implemented the restoration of dozens of important national monuments that had fallen into disrepair, perhaps the most durable of the initiatives undertaken for the 150th anniversary. Giuliano Amato singled out Paolo Peluffo, then serving as Undersecretary of the Council of Ministers, as having played a major role as promoter and organizer of the celebrations.10 The inactivity of government noted by the panellists may come as a surprise, but it may have had the unintended effect of giving greater visibility and significance to the many initiatives undertaken by local groups and municipal administrations, thus testifying to the presence of genuine national feelings at local levels. It may be taken as a sure indication that the spirit of old-fashioned patriotism is far from dead in Italy’s paese reale, a conclusion that lends support to hope expressed by President Napolitano that Italians will be inspired by their shared past to come together in the present and future.

Several panellists referred to the unprecedented role played by the media in the course of the celebrations, a novelty surely to be expected given the advances in communication technology that have occurred in the last fifty years. A strong case can be made that the overall effect of media coverage has been positive, and that for the first time millions of people were able to share in the excitement of the events as participants and viewers. The synergetic effect of the publicity may have contributed to the proliferation of local initiatives mentioned by the panellists. But it is also possible that the publicity surrounding the celebrations conferred on them more the character of collective entertainment than of thoughtful reflection. Professor Monsagrati’s paper points out that in 1961 the north–south split was discussed from a Gramscian perspective as a form of class conflict that called for drastic remedies. Professor Davis’s paper mentions that, in 1961, Gramsci’s theory of the Risorgimento as a rivoluzione mancata inspired a lively and enlightening debate on the south before and after national unification, a debate that involved prestigious experts and intellectuals like Rosario Romeo and Alexander Gerschenkron. One looks in vain for a debate of comparable scope in 2011, a year that was more memorable for the public performances of talented entertainers like the great Roberto Benigni. Which implies no criticism of Benigni, who was truly moving in his homage to Italy’s past, but is rather a reflection of changing tastes and times.

Professor Davis reminds us also that few if any of the problems faced by the south are new or unexplored, that most were acknowledged in the aftermath of national unification, and that there is no reason to regret the passing of the pre-unification regimes that had shown their incompetence, but are nevertheless

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

being romanticized by a nostalgic historiography. All of which makes the final two questions that he raises urgently relevant. The first asks why so little progress has been made in devising solutions to problems that were identified long ago; the second asks why national unity has proved so resilient if the process of national unification has been as flawed at its critics claim. The first question points to the inadequacies of the process, while the second points to the reserves of talent and resources that should yet succeed in keeping the nation together for the benefit of north, centre and south. That is indeed a hopeful message, in keeping with the spirit of the 150th anniversary of the nation.

If Professor Coppa is right, and if I read him correctly, progress has certainly been made towards resolving the troubling issue of relations between Church and State that has long divided the nation along religious, ideological and political lines. His paper gives us a very close look of how clerical attitudes towards the Italian state changed and mellowed in the course of three successive generations within a family of the Roman aristocracy that remained faithful to the papacy in the aftermath of national unification. It is surely significant that the family in question was the Pacelli’s, which eventually produced Pope Pius XII, of whom Professor Coppa has since published a new biography. It is revealing to see how the process of accommodation unfolded at this family level, where the interplay of character, interests and circumstances can be well documented.

The full story of the rapprochement between Church and State would require taking a look at what was happening on the other side, the side of Italian politics and government, where a similar process of gradual accommodation was also occurring; but the story set out in Professor Coppa’s paper stands on its own terms. It indicates that the Problem of Church and State, unlike the Problem of the South, has found a solution that has every appearance of durability within a constitutional framework that provides for the separation of Church and State and for freedom of religion and conscience. That there are still many areas of disagreement is undeniable, particularly in questions of family life and procreation, but the well-documented cordiality and mutual respect between President Napolitano on the Italian side, and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis on the Vatican side, attests to how much has changed from the days when violent clashes between clerical and anticlerical militants erupted regularly in the streets of Rome and elsewhere in the country.

Finally, let us turn to the theme of Italy in Europe, one that the anniversary’s official guidelines made part of the agenda, and that Professor Monsagrati addresses explicitly in his paper. The clearest expression of Italy’s European vocation is to be found in Mazzini’s republicanism, which tied both the success of the Italian national movement and Italy’s future in Europe to the victory of republicanism. Other Risorgimento figures were also Europeanists, including Cattaneo and Cavour, even if in the limited sense that they saw the economic desirability of cooperation among the nations of Europe. Catholic thought, with its emphasis on the universal role of Christianity, has also contributed to the cosmopolitan orientation of Italian culture. It should therefore come as no

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Roland Sarti

surprise that, given these antecedents and traditions, Italy has been and remains a steadfast advocate of European integration, a fact that does not necessarily point to the demise of the democratically organized national state as the fundamental unit of the modern political order. Whatever the future may hold, no one seems to envisage a Europe without national states, which leaves the question open of what Italy’s role will be as it moves, as it most likely will, towards more binding forms of European integration, hopefully after overcoming the concerns and uncertainties that have marked the Centocinquantenario.

Notes

1 See Ridolfi (2003, especially Chapters 5 and 6), for a discussion of how these two holidays have become part of Italy’s republican narrative.

2 ‘The unsolved challenge handed to us by the past is how to reform the country while keeping it united’ (Corriere della Sera and TG1 interview, January 24, 2013).

3 ‘The sense of confidence must come to us from having overcome many hardships in the course of our national history and by acknowledging that there are key moments in our past that point the way to the future.’ In his speech of March 17, 2012, President Napolitano gave a very positive summation of what the celebrations had achieved and augured for the future of the country. See Napolitano (2013, 177–186).

4 ‘ . . . recall an Italy that is not lost, an Italy not disillusioned, that we like to inhabit today in freedom, as informed and responsible citizens’.

5 On the importance that post-unification governments attached to the building of monuments in the capital city, and of the Vittoriano in particular, see Brice (1997b, 382–383). On the controversies surrounding the design and construction of the Vittoriano, see also Brice (1997a, 279–297).

6 See the illustrated catalogue L’Unita d’Italia. Mostra storica (1961). See also Bouchard (2005), Marongiu (2011), and Talamo (1961).

7 For a very informative and appreciative overview of the new historiography, see the article by Isabella (2012).

8 ‘the invented hero of an invented country’. For other examples of storia antirisorgimentale, see Gigi Di Fiore (2007) and Martucci (1999). For an overview, see Patriarca (2010).

9 ‘Culture is the fulcrum of our national identity rooted in the Italian language, developed in the course of the last two centuries in a continuity of ideals and values that draws together the Risorgimento, the Resistance, and the Constitution of the Italian Republic.’ From Comitato dei Garanti per le Celebrazioni del 1508 Anniversario dell’Unita‘ Nazionale, ‘Considerazioni in merito alle linee program­matiche del Governo . . . ’ See full text at http://www.italiaunita150.it.

10 See Giuliano Amato’s preface to Peluffo (2012, 5–8).

References

Bouchard, Norma. 2005. “Italia ’61: The Commemorations for the Centenary of Unification in the First Capital of the Italian State.” Romance Studies 23 (July 2005): 117–129.

Brice, Catherine. 1997a. Monumentalite publique et politique a Rome. Le Vittoriano. Rome: Ecole Franc�aise de Rome. `

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Italy on the 150th anniversary of national unity

Brice, Catherine. 1997b. “Pouvoirs, liturgies et monuments politiques a Rome.” In Ceremonial et rituel a Rome XVIe-XIXe siecle, edited by Maria Antonietta Visceglia, and Catherine Brice. E cole Franc�aise de Rome: Scuola Tipografica S. Pio X. `

Comitato Ordinatore della Mostra Storica. Unita (L’) d’Italia. Mostra storica. 1961. Milan: Amilcare Pizzi Editore.

Di Fiore, Gigi. 2007. Controstoria dell’unita d’Italia. Fatti e misfatti del Risorgimento. Milan: Rizzoli.

Di Napoli, Mario. 2010. “La vera data del 1508 anniversario dell’Unita d’Italia.” Il Pensiero Mazzinano 65 (May–August): 6–8.

Isabella, Maurizio. 2012. “Rethinking Italy’s Nation-Building 150 Years Afterwards: The New Risorgimento Historiography.” Past and Present CCXVII (November): 216–268.

Marongiu, Gianni. 2011. “Il centocinquantesimo anniversario dell’Unita d’Italia.” Il Pensiero Mazziniano 66 (January–April): 123–131.

Martucci, Roberto. 1999. L’invenzione dell’Italia unita. Milan: Sansoni. Napolitano, Giorgio. 2013. I discorsi. Rome: Europa Edizioni. Edited by Achille

Albonetti. Napolitano, Giorgio. 2011. Una e indivisibile: riflessioni sui 150 anni della nostra Italia.

Milan: Rizzoli. Oneto, Gilberto. 2006. L’Iperitaliano. Eroe o cialtrone? Biografia senza censure di Giuseppe

Garibaldi. Rimini: Il Cerchio. Patriarca, Silvana. 2010. “Unmaking the Nation? Uses and Abuses of Garibaldi in

Contemporary Italy.” Modern Italy 15 (4): 467–483. Peluffo, Paolo. 2012. La riscoperta della patria. Perche il 1508 dell’Unita d’Italia e stato un

successo. Milan: Rizzoli. Ridolfi, Maurizio. 2003. Le feste nazionali. Bologna: Il Mulino. Talamo, Giuseppe, ed. 1961. Gli ideali del Risorgimento e dell’Unita. Rome: Ente Nazionale

Biblioteche Popolari e Scolastiche. Villari, Lucio. 2009. Bella e perduta. L’Italia del Risorgimento. Roma–Bari: Editori Laterza.

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

assa

chus

etts

, Am

hers

t] a

t 09:

10 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014