2024-10-07 08:11:00
Adriano Viarengo specifies how the succession at the helm of the periodical occurred between 1957 and 1958, from Chabod to Venturi. The response from Ernesto Galli della Loggia
Dear Director, I am writing to you asking for your hospitality in relation to the extensive article by Ernesto Galli della Loggia dedicated to Rosario Romeo, which appeared in the «Corriere della Sera» of last 4 October. It is to the honor of the author and the newspaper that they have given ample space to the figure of the great Sicilian historian, to whose works I have been linked throughout my life as a scholar. In this life, however, I was also very close to Franco Venturi and the «Rivista Storico Italiana». Therefore, while I rejoice at the homage of such an authoritative signature to Romeo, I am disappointed by the way in which Galli della Loggia presents Venturi’s assumption of the direction of the «Rivista Storico Italiana» (born in Turin, in 1884) as having occurred in competition with Romeowon because he had to pay for not being liked by the prevailing left in Italian historiography.
I therefore believe it is my duty to intervene with a brief communication (a broader mention will appear in the «Italian historical magazine») to protect the image of Federico Chabod, Venturi and other eminent scholars mentioned in the articleeven considering, last but not leastthat newspaper readers have the right to have correct information.
NO, Romeo was not a victim of anything because there was never his candidacy (much less “supported by Chabod, Cantimori and Maturi”, as stated in the article). In fact, as Gennaro Sasso stated, referring to the study that I published on that succession, precisely in the «Italian historical magazine», in 2004, «it seems to be effectively excluded, given the state of the documentation, that at any time there had been, on the part of Chabod, the intention to entrust Rosario Romeo with the direction of the Italian historical magazine” (see “La Cultura”, n. 2/2005, p. 189, and the testimony of Rosario Villari, ibid., p. 190). And, if I remember correctly, Guido Pescosolido doesn’t even mention it in his fundamental biography of Romeo.
Twenty years have passed since my essay and no mention of such a candidacy has ever appeared. After all it could not have competed with that of Venturi. Let us always remember that we are talking about events that occurred between 1957 and the end of 1958, when Federico Chabod, then the true dominus of Italian academic historiography, announced his intention to leave the responsible editorship of the magazine.
In 1957-58 Romeo was 33/34 years old and had, above all, an important and innovative monograph on the Sicily of the Risorgimento. His famous articles on Marxist historiography and the Italian Risorgimento were then just beginning to appear (1956-1958). Franco Venturi, then a teacher in Genoa, was ten years older and already had a gigantic production (227 titles in the bibliography in 1958). Exile in France since 1932 with his father, the art historian Lionello, Venturi, collaborator of Carlo Rosselli in Justice and Freedom, imprisoned in Spain and confined in Italy, then a partisan in the Action Party in Piedmont, he was already an important figure in international historiography for his studies on Diderot, the Encyclopédie and the world of the Italian and European Enlightenment – on the one hand – and – on the other – for those on eighteenth-century Russia and, above all, the ‘ nineteenth century, culminating in the two volumes on Russian Populism (1952), conceived and begun while he was cultural attaché at the Italian embassy in Moscow and soon translated into English, with an introduction by Isaiah Berlin.
Apart from this, according to the hierarchical academic mentality of the time, how would it have been possible for scholars of great prestige such as Giorgio Falco, Delio Cantimori, Arnaldo Momigliano, Ernesto Sestan and Walter Maturi agreed to be directed by the young and brilliant ordinary and secretary of Chabod at the Italian Institute for Historical Studies in Naples – today known to everyone as «il Croce» – who the Aosta Valley man directed? And in fact no one thought about it among the directors.
No left-wing crime (I believe Galli della Loggia was thinking of this in writing, given the firm anti-communism of both Chabod and Venturi) but “actionist” was then perpetrated (it is known that both Chabod and Venturi belonged to the PdA). The Venturi proposal had been put forward by Maturi (certainly in concert with Chabod) since a management meeting in October 1957 (as Cantimori wrote to Sestan the following year).
So, you might think, are we faced with an oversight? No. Galli della Loggia refers to a rumor, perhaps born within the Neapolitan Institutewhose students, young scholars with a great future (such as, to name a few in addition to Romeo, Cinzio Violante, Giuseppe Giarrizzo, Emilio Gabba, Giuseppe Galasso, Roberto Vivarelli) constituted the backbone of the collaborators of the «Italian Historical Review». Just for reference: Gabba, Galasso, Giarrizzo and Vivarelli will be called in the following decades (like Romeo, who did not accept) to be part of the management of the magazine and Gabba will even be Venturi’s successor.
There were certainly youthful ambitions there then. After all, Cantimori also had an eager pupil like Armando Saitta. And of this i fathers they were able to take it into account. It was not for nothing that Maturi, director of the operation (with, but in a minor role, Momigliano), certainly not a man with the attitude of a manager, but wise and sensitive, had proposed that Venturi succeed Chabod as sole director in charge, but “supported” by himself. And so it happened. It was obvious, however, that those young scholars were disappointed, primarily Romeo, the closest among them to Chabod.
As for the influence in the succession of Mattioli, who knew and respected Venturi, nothing has ever emerged here either. On the contrary. Once the succession has been accepted, Venturi will turn to him to see how he can scrape together some money to set up an editorial office in Turin, something that neither Momigliano nor Maturi liked at all, who were determined to keep the powerful banker out of the magazine.
Ernesto Galli della Loggia’s reply
First of all, I thank Professor Viarengo for his attention and his observations. Regarding the question of the change in direction of the Rivista Storico Italiana in 1959, I have stuck to the version – presented as uncertain, but even in my text one reads “it is said” – given by an illustrious historian like Giuseppe Giarrizzo, presumably era and later informed of the facts and their background, in his essay «Venturi and the problem of intellectuals» in The courage of reason. Franco Venturi, cosmopolitan intellectual and historian edited by L. Guerci and G. Ricuperati, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Turin 1998, pp. 46-47.
October 7, 2024 (changed October 7, 2024 | 10:10)
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
#Romeo #Italian #historical #magazine #hypothesis #candidacy #directorship #Corriere.it
Interview between Time.news Editor and Adriano Viarengo, Historical Analyst
Time.news Editor: Good morning, Adriano! Thank you for joining us today to discuss the fascinating transition of leadership at the Rivista Storico Italiana during 1957-58. There’s a lot of historical nuance in that era. Can you start by giving our readers a brief overview of the significance of this period in Italian historiography?
Adriano Viarengo: Good morning! Absolutely, the period between 1957 and 1958 was pivotal in shaping modern Italian historiography. It marked a clear generational shift and was a time of intense intellectual activity and political maneuvering. Federico Chabod, already a prominent figure, announced his decision to step down from the editorship, and it was a critical moment that impacted future scholarly directions.
Time.news Editor: You’ve mentioned a key figure—Franco Venturi—who took over the editorship. Ernesto Galli della Loggia recently provided some commentary on this succession. Some readers might find it controversial; he implied a competitive atmosphere, especially regarding the prominent historian Rosario Romeo. What’s your take on that?
Adriano Viarengo: Galli della Loggia’s perspective suggests there was some intrigue or rivalry which isn’t supported by the documented evidence. In fact, there was never a formal candidacy for Romeo to lead the Rivista. Venturi’s ascent was backed by established scholars, and the notion that Venturi succeeded due to a leftist aversion towards Romeo oversimplifies a complex situation.
Time.news Editor: That’s certainly an intriguing perspective. You emphasize that there was a strategic decision for Venturi to lead rather than an outcome of rivalry. What were the contributions that made Venturi a clear choice over someone like Romeo, who, albeit younger, was also a talented historian?
Adriano Viarengo: It’s essential to contextualize Venturi’s extensive scholarly output at that time—he had already published 227 works by 1958, reflecting not just depth but an established international reputation. In contrast, while Romeo was making his mark with innovative work on the Sicilian Risorgimento, he simply did not have the same breadth of experience or recognition yet. Venturi’s background, including his politically charged life experiences during his exile and work during a tumultuous period in Europe, made him a compelling figure in historical discourse.
Time.news Editor: So, would you say the academic hierarchy and personalities involved played a significant role in this transition as well?
Adriano Viarengo: Absolutely. The academic culture at that time was hierarchical. Influential figures like Giorgio Falco and Arnaldo Momigliano would not readily accept direction from someone younger, even from Chabod’s closest associates. The choice of Venturi was thus partly a matter of respect for established academics and the need for continuity in a turbulent academic landscape.
Time.news Editor: You’ve highlighted some tensions in the narrative around this leadership change. Do you believe there was a need to correct the historical record as Galli della Loggia’s article suggests a simpler conflict?
Adriano Viarengo: Yes, indeed. It is crucial for readers and historians alike to have an accurate representation of these events. The implication that Romeo was a victim of academic politics misrepresents the dynamics at play. I plan to elaborate on these points in an upcoming piece for the Italian Historical Review, where I’ll clarify the roles of key figures involved and the context that influenced these decisions.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Adriano, for shedding light on this complex historical moment. It seems the story of Chabod and Venturi is more than friction; it involves deep-rooted academic traditions and the evolution of scholarship. We look forward to reading more from you on this subject.
Adriano Viarengo: Thank you! It’s been a pleasure discussing this important chapter in Italian historiography.
Time.news Editor: And thank you to our readers for tuning in. Stay curious as we continue to explore the intricacies of history and its interpretation!