Luigi Pirandello’s Concept of Life and His Way to Fascism

Luigi Pirandello’s Concept of Life and His Way to Fascism Luciana brandi University of Florence [email protected]om Ubaldo Ceccoli O.V.i. institute of National Research Council of italy, Florence Clotilde barbarulli O.V.i. institute of National Research Council of italy, Florence Luciana Brandi — Ubaldo Ceccoli — Clotilde Barbarulli SYNOPSIS This article investigates Pirandello’s adhesion to the Italian Fascist Party by examining articles, interviews, letters, and essays with the aim of shedding light on the political dimension of this choice, so frequently mitigated by the critics, and of showing its relations to the author’s concept of life. Finally, by taking aclose look at leading themes in the novel Il fu Mattia Pascal, the article raises the questions: To what extent is this text permeated with ideological elements? In what ways, similarly, does it transmit aview of the world that would connect Pirandello’s thinking to ideas that were mainstream in the society of his time. KEYWORDS Fascism; form; life; democracy; tyranny; uselessness of efforts; science; waiting. DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/23366680.2021.3.3 JOINING THE NATIONAL FASCIST PARTY In atelegram to Il Duce on 17September 1924, Luigi Pirandello asked to be made amember of the National Fascist Party, claiming to be its ‘most humble and obedient supporter’. Two days later the message was published in the newspaper L’Impero: ‘Your Excellency, Ifeel that for me this is the most propitious moment to declare afaith that Ihave always nourished and served in silence. If Your Excellency considers me worthy of joining the National Fascist Party, Iwould be proud to have the highest honour of occupying the position of its most humble and obedient supporter. With total devotion, Luigi Pirandello’.1 1 This request by Pirandello to Mussolini was published in L’Impero, 19September 1924; this journal is defined by Giudice (1963, p.425) as ‘one of the most agitated and factious fascist autoři OPEN ACCESS 46 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 It should be remembered that on 30May 1924, Giacomo Matteotti, amember of the Socialist Party, had delivered aspeech to Parliament strongly criticising the government and denouncing the conditions of violence and aggression in which the last elections had been held, and that soon after, on 10June, he was abducted in Rome by fascists in broad daylight while going to the Chamber of Deputies to denounce the corruption committed by Mussolini’s government in licensing oil extraction in Sicily and Emilia to the American company Sincair Oil.2 The body of Matteotti was found on 16August. In retaliation, on 12September, Armando Casalini, deputy of National Fascist Party, was killed by the communist carpenter Giovanni Corvi. Pirandello joined the fascist party five days after Casalini’s death and one month after the discovery of Matteotti’s body. In an interview with Telesio Interlandi the following day, when asked to state his reasons for joining the Fascist Party,3 Pirandello answered: ‘in one word: Matteotti’. The meaning of this laconic declaration was made clear by Interlandi himself as he sought to explain its motivations: ‘The obscene speculation made on the body of the Unitary deputy, the industrialisation of his body up to the most revolting consequences, the campaign of lies and falsehoods that have thrived on that macabre scene […] the clear perception of the terrible danger for the country left to its poisoners’.4 In the face of the Matteotti assassination, Pirandello seems unalarmed and unperturbed. Would it therefore be incorrect to say that Pirandello consented and was an accomplice to that line of violence, remaining totally blind to the excessive deeds and actions of the fascists? In fact, the squadristi (or ‘Blackshirts’) who were responsible for this violence, and who were comprised in large part by Arditi veterans (elite special forces of the Royal Italian Army who had served in the First World War), were in the practice of organising punitive campaigns against any political adversary of the party, including trade unions, Case del popolo (social and cultural community centres), and so on. They were also behind the assassination of Don Minzoni in 1923, and the beatings which led to the deaths of Giovanni Amendola and Piero Gobetti. Pirandello’s gesture in joining the Fascist Party signifies his implicit consent to the use of violence as afoundational element of fascism. Even if an action is made up of asequence of motor acts, it inevitably refers to intentions, projects, motivations, and finally to the reasons that lead asubject to choose acourse of action based on his own choice and precise interpretation. The interpretation of an event, similarly, does not journals’. One year before, Mussolini had received Pirandello at Chigi Palace on 22October 1923. 2 Various essays show the complicity between profiteers and the regime as the cause of the Matteotti assassination, given that the deputy was inquiring about the ordinances on oil research by Sinclair oil and on the gaming industry (see Canali 1997; Mandelli 2012; Pagnini 2018). 3 Telesio Interlandi, who had aclose relationship with Mussolini from the birth of ‘Fasci di combattimento’, played the role of forerunner of the regime positions, by means of the newspapers he headed. He was always anti-Semitic, and in 1938 he gave life to the magazine La difesa della razza (‘The defense of the race’). Arrested in 1945, he managed to escape and stay hidden until the amnesty for fascist crimes. 4 ‘L’oscena speculazione compiuta sul cadavere del deputato unitario, l’industrializza zione di quel cadavere spinta fino alle più rivoltanti conseguenze, la campagna di menzogne edi falsità prosperante su quel macabro terreno […] la chiara percezione del tremendo pericolo che corre il paese abbandonato ai suoi avvelenatori’ (L’Impero, 19September 1924). OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 47 simply add itself to the action but constitutes it. It is in this context, and with respect to this historical moment, that Pirandello’s telegram requesting to join the Fascist Party must be understood. In terms of the political legitimacy of the regime, the telegram arrived at its weakest moment, when crisis was poised to overwhelm it. As we will see, many critics have sought to define Pirandello’s motivations as opportunistic rather than ideological, or to ascribe it to different aims altogether: the writer’s innate tendency to go against the tide, his rooted distrust in the traditional political parties, his hostility to democracy, his need for certainties beyond the boundaries of his own relativism. Whatever the case, one fact is certain: that human action possesses an intrinsic value, both ethical and political, transcending the contingency of its motivations. The choice goes back to ajudgement grounded on avariety of ideas and dispositions; to choose involves aform of judgement that requires aleading principle, to such an extent that personal opinions live via the selected choices, and ultimately persist on values.5 Facing alarge number of empirical facts, the meaning they have for the human conscience in accomplishing them time after time has to be found, and this means discovering the value, the nucleus by which they are substantiated and warranted. Making adecision also concerns subjective values, which constitute asort of moral imperative, so that personal responsibility is never suppressed for decisions made in service of these values. We must therefore ask what values contributed to Pirandello’s decision to join the fascist party, and what idea of society is there embodied. Pirandello may have been impelled to join fascism because he perceived the movement as ahope for Italy; this way of framing it, however, recasts the Matteotti assassination as founding act of anational renaissance— aperspective we find difficult to justify. Some light may be shed, however, by trying to understand Pirandello’s decision in the context of the conflict between conservative forces and the innovative social pressures of that period. Consider again Interlandi’s interview of Pirandello in 1924. Pirandello agrees with the suppression of the dissenting press, abolition of the Chamber of Deputies, and reform of the Senate so that it consists of amixed Assembly formed with administrators and representatives of basic state institutions. The writer, in giving his remarks, points out: ‘Ididn’t say as simply and directly as it appears from your interview that Iwould like to see “the suppression of the opposing press”. Isaid that, as it has been applied, the decree concerning the press, which is an exceptional measure to avoid ableak and ugly campaign of one-sided hate, has in fact repressed very little, with the only effect of making its own application both empty and harmful. Empty, because the nefarious fruit of the hate campaign may well have been Mr Casalini’s death; harmful because it has been used, and continues to be used, as an easy pretence for shouting about “restrictions on freedom”.’6 Gaspare Giudice observes that one month later, when the dissenting press is actually suppressed, ‘Pirandello will not disapprove: indeed, he will remain an advocate for the regime’ (Giudice 1963, p.431).7 5 The current reflection began to move within some philosophical streams during the second half of the 19th century; they paid attention to history and progressively shed light on the interconnections between the world of values and the world of historical facts. 6 The letter was published in L’Impero, 24September 1924. 7 In this part of the interview with Interlandi, Pirandello appears to anticipate the totalitarian structure outlined by Mussolini some months later, in the discourse of 3January 1925. OPEN ACCESS 48 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 Ada Fichera underlines that Pirandello’s move to fascism at that ‘specific juncture in history is not acoincidence’ since Pirandello himself declares, in an interview to Il Piccolo in Trieste on 21October 1924, that ‘If you are hinting at my recent decision to join the Fascist Party, I’ll tell you that Idid it with the aim of helping fascism in its work of renewing and reconstructing’; in the article published in the evening edition, the word ‘fascism’ is changed to ‘the party’ (Fichera 2017, p.69, 65). In 1925, Pirandello moreover signs the ‘Manifesto of fascist intellectuals’ which gives clear justification for the squadristi: ‘Firm young men, armed, wearing the black shirts, commanded in military fashion, have acted against the law in order to set up anew law, as an armed force against the State to start the new State’.8 These events were met with strong reactions from Pirandello’s contemporaries. Adriano Tilgher, for example, ended all relations with the writer, and Giovanni Amendola’s comment about ‘vulgar men’ in the newspaper was ostensibly directed at Pirandello and his decision to join the Fascist Party.9 Conversely, these same events were played down by post-war critics. THE CRITICS’ DEFENCE OF PIRANDELLO Nino Borsellino claims that Pirandello caught the most compliant aspects of intellectual and moral compromise within politics, therefore his adhesion to fascism and particularly to the charisma of the new leader ‘should be seen as agesture of support vis-à-vis afigure capable of exceptional creative powers’; moreover the critics recall that, beyond the honours he received from the regime, Pirandello often affirmed his non-involvement in politics: ‘I’m apolitical, I’m only aman in the world.’10 Clearly Borsellino does not take into account the fact that Pirandello, during his first journey to the United States at the end of 1923, was not shy with his opinions, generally of an antidemocratic tenor, on social and political issues.11 Italian critics have often shown atendency to overlook Luigi Pirandello’s membership in the National Fascist Party, and those who mention it typically take one of two 8 According to Saitta, fascism arose as an ‘anti-liberal and antidemocratic, anti-working class, and antisocialist dictatorship’ and should be defined as an ‘armed social reaction’ (Saitta 1962, p.594). 9 See Amendola, Giovanni: ‘Un uomo volgare’. Il Mondo, 25.9.1924, and the answer by Pirandello: ‘Lettera aperta agli amici firmatari della protesta in sua difesa contro l’articolo: Un uomo volgare’. L’Impero, 30.10.1924. The critic Adriano Tilgher, who had previously sustained and promoted Pirandello, moved from Il Tempo to Il Mondo, sharing the antifascism of Amendola; although strongly impressed by the writer’s adhesion to fascism, he did not subscribe to the paper by Amendola with the aim of giving regard to Pirandello as awriter. In any case, on 1June 1927, Tilgher fiercely attacked Diana ela Tuda. 10 Interview by Giuseppe Villaroel, Il Giornale d’Italia, 8May 1924; on 12June 1926, Pirandello claims: ‘Io sono fascista. Enon da ora; sono trent’anni che faccio il fascista’ (‘Iam afascist— and for along time. It is thirty years that Iam afascist’; Il pensiero in Bergamo; see Giudice 1963, p.441). 11 To have abroader look at the opinions about Pirandello as afascist, see Scarpellini 1989; Aguirre d’Amico 1992; Pedullà 1994; Providenti 2000; Barbina 1967. OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 49 attitudes. The first tends to minimise Pirandello’s politics, or separate the writer from the man, seeking to demonstrate that his works reflect neither the fascist lexicon nor its ideology. Borsellino, for example, claims that Pirandello’s fascism was not particularly experienced or celebrated, and Sciascia maintains that Pirandello’s criticisms of the parliamentary system do not betray afascist tendency but merely his desire to be different, asymptom of the kind of ‘stubbornness’ that characterises ‘aSicilian man’. This assertion refers to two main facts regarding Pirandello: first, that he joined the National Fascist Party at amoment when it faced the possibility of aheavy loss of approval; and second, that he gave frequent expression to his anti-democratic views, starting with the well-known sequence in Il fu Mattia Pascal in which democracy is defined as ‘tyranny masked as freedom’. Pirandello confirmed these views once more in an interview with Giuseppe Villaroel for the Giornale d’Italia in May 1924, stating, ‘Iam anti-democratic par excellence’.12 It must be noted that Sciascia uses the words ‘clumsy manner’ and Borsellino speaks of ‘improvisations’ to refer to Pirandello’s adhesion to the fascist party, in this way diminishing the value of his actions. Later on, Borsellino appears to revise his position and to connect Pirandello’s adhesion to the ‘mussolinism’ of that historic period, characterised by many social conflicts, by awidespread rejection of the ideals of the Italian Risorgimento, and by electoral compromises. So that, seeking aquick solution to Italy’s problems, Pirandello came to see fascism as the only political movement in the history of modern Italy able to overcome them all at once, by handing over all power to acharismatic person believed to represent agreater will for redemption (Borsellino 2004, p.154).13 According to Giudice, Pirandello’s attraction to fascism had acomplex origin in the writer’s personal history and middle class background. Giudice underlines that when Pirandello died, his funeral, as laid out in his will, did not follow the fascist tendency of alarge official ceremony. We must remember, however, that Pirandello’s will was written in 1911, so it is hard to make the argument that his choice was linked to adesire to take his leave by ‘slamming the door in the regime’s face’ (cf. Borsellino 2004, p.102, 150; Giudice 1963, p.463). Mario Soldati states that Pirandello ‘was afervent and committed fascist in practice, even if he claimed in theory to be apolitical’, and Asor Rosa claims that the writer’s adhesion to fascism was the culmination of the criticisms advanced by the middle classes towards the parliamentary and liberal-democratic regime, adisapproval ‘that for many meant turning to fascism’.14 Eugenio Garin maintains: ‘Despite all appearances, Iwould never call him afascist. One finds in him the end of all insecurities, the anxiety typical of his time’.15 Gianfranco Vené, by contrast, does not find any attenuating circumstances in Pi12 Il Giornale d’Italia, 8May 1924. 13 Note that Borsellino uses the term ‘mussolinism’ instead of fascism to speak about the Pirandello’s political conversion. 14 Soldati, Mario: ‘Brutto segno se Pirandello va forte’. Il Giorno, 20.12.1966, the first of three articles published by the newspaper (10.1.1967, 27.1.1967); Asor Rosa 1974, p.1434. 15 Garin, Eugenio: ‘Omero sotto il fascismo, interview by Nello Ajello’. La Repubblica, 9October 1987. OPEN ACCESS 50 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 randello’s fascist sympathies; whatever ‘tormented thought’ might have shaped the writer’s views, they did not ‘give him any qualms about the advent of fascism but, on the contrary, led the writer to see in fascism a“moment of truth” in the life of the nation’ (Venè 1972, p.277). According to Giuseppe Petronio, Pirandello’s conception of life and art matured between 1889 and 1904, fusing together ‘apatriotic passion offended by the inglorious end’ of Risorgimento ideals, with anti-democratic and anti-socialist sentiments (Petronio 1986, p.250). One finds evidence of these claims, for example, in the soliloquy of the drunk man in Il fu Mattia Pascal, and asequence that seems to aim at Ada Negri in which the author writes of ‘Karl Marx’s algebra books’ and ‘the criminal nonsense of the many misfit professional charlatans, and today, naturally, socialists’ (Pirandello 2006, p.121), attitudes that Pirandello repeats in his novel Ivecchi eigiovani (‘The young and the old’). In any case, Pirandello ‘was certainly not apre-fascist, aclaim that, in the context of the 1890s, is at very least an exaggeration’, nor was he ‘asupporter of the common people’ as others believe. He was, like many other middle-class intellectuals, an enemy of democracy and socialism, and an opponent of science as well: ‘he dreamed of astrong man, but in his own way, with amoral rage totally absent in others’ (Petronio 1986, pp.251–252). Another persevering idea among the critics is that adistinction can be made between Pirandello’s political choices and his literary works, since the latter do not show any trace of fascist lexicon or ideology. In our view, the notion that an author may be separated in this way from his literary production does not in itself appear implausible; in the case of Pirandello, however, we wonder to what extent this notion— that his works remained unaffected by his political ideology— may be maintained.16 THE PERSISTENCE OF THE CHOICE Despite widely varying interpretations of Pirandello’s adhesion to fascism, we believe his motivations are made clear in the context of his repeated public and private declarations of support for Mussolini and the fascist regime. As early as April 1924, he tells the Giornale di Sicilia that he holds Mussolini in the ‘highest esteem’.17 In an interview published by L’Impero on 12March 1927, he claims that ‘In all of history Mussolini has no equal, for there has never been aleader who knew how to give his peo16 According to Giudice, given that the experience of life is reflected within the works, the writer’s acts of social behaviour must be not ignored, because ‘tout se tient’ (Giudice 1963, p.417). The critics’ position towards the Nazis philosopher Heidegger moves in the same way: with respect to the reading made by Victor Farias of the relationships between philosophy and the political choices of the philosopher for Nazism (who never recanted), the common critique reconfirms that it is necessary to consider the man distinct from his works (Farias 1988). According to Emmanuel Faye too, the hypothesis that the ideas of any human being are not separable from his lived life is empty (Faye 2012). 17 Interview to Giornale di Sicilia on 10April 1924: Mussolini ‘has the highest merit to have created and to have placed in value Italy’ (‘ha l’altissimo merito di avere creato edi avere messo in valore l’Italia’). OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 51 ple such avivid impression of his personality’: ‘how gladly, dear friends, would Iset to work as agravedigger to get rid of all the corpses infecting Italy!’ Pirandello thus considers the necessity of ‘fascistically’ cleansing from Italy ‘all those who believe to be alive but are not’.18 References to ‘Il Duce’ can be found everywhere in his letters to Marta Abba,19 often in the context of seeking help for his theatre projects, with the indirect aim of preserving his relationship with the actress (his ‘light’). In 1929 Pirandello was nominated Academic of Italy, after along and anxious wait for the nomination, as he states in aletter dated 19March 1929. In aletter dated 26March 1929, he claims to be ‘proud’ that Il Duce would consider him, adding that the enemies are sure now to lose their arrogance. Several days later, in aletter dated 29March, he confirms to Mussolini his ‘total profound devotion’. In aletter dated 4March 1932, Marta Abba describes how she was received by Mussolini, and expresses her disappointment that during the meeting there was no discussion of the future of their theatre project. Pirandello replies that, in spite of this, he must ‘raise the myth of Mussolini higher’ and ‘exalt him as the nation’s saviour’ even if Il Duce accuses him of having a‘bad character’ (6February 1932).20 Pirandello writes again afew days later to tell Marta Abba enthusiastically about meeting Mussolini, who listened to his proposal for the foundation of the National Dramatic Theatre with great attention.21 Then he gives his impression of Mussolini as a‘rough and unrefined human specimen, born to command with contempt for mediocre and vulgar people […] Nevertheless Iknow that in acruel time like this one […] such aman is necessary; necessary to preserve the myth we gave life to, and despite all to believe in and to stay faithful to this myth, as to an indispensable hardness that in certain moments we must usefully impose upon ourselves’ (14February 1932). Pirandello’s faith is so total, so blind, that it forces him to overlook Mussolini’s negative traits, and treat fascism as an historic necessity. In aletter of 6December 1932, Pirandello mentions another meeting with Il Duce, and his disappointment upon finding Mussolini to be tired, sick, and depressed (even if reliable, as usual) when he was expecting to find a‘giant’. When he asks about the project, which has been neglected since the dismissal of Giuseppe Bottai, Il Duce answers that the situation is ‘tragic’ and the risk of war is present: ‘Concerning performances, the people will have to be satisfied with those available to mass audiences, 18 ‘Acolloquio con Pirandello’, interview by Umberto Gentili. L’Impero, 12March 1927. We may recall that when Toscanini was attached by the fascists in Bologna on 14May 1931 because he refused to play Giovinezza and the royal hymn, Pirandello wrote: ‘they did wrong to slap him, but for the reason that these slaps would have had agreat resonance abroad, as they really had’ (Letter to Marta Abba on 22May 1931). 19 Luigi Pirandello: Lettere aMarta Abba, 1925–1936. Milano, Mondadori 2013. Hereafter the letters are cited by date. It is notable that from 7July 1933, Pirandello begins to add, or use exclusively, the year denomination of the fascist era. 20 Pirandello believed to have gained many enemies in the occasion of his talk about Verga to the Academy of Italy on 3December 1931, when he claimed that D’Annunzio was at fault in the triumph of words style over Verga’s things style. 21 After the meeting with Mussolini, several contacts with Bottai will take place (see the letters on 2.4.1932; 6.4.1932; 13.4.1932; 14.4.1932; 17.4.1932; 4.5.1932; Tuesday, 5. 1932). OPEN ACCESS 52 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 the stadiums and the cinema’. Pirandello is crushed, as this means the end of his dreams for anational theatre with Marta Abba. But this does not seem to affect the writer’s ties to the regime, as we learn in his letter of 19March 1934, in which he writes that he had ‘to attend the Duce’s speech at the second quinquennial assembly of the regime, wearing ablack shirt’. Ceaselessly seeking Mussolini’s approval, Pirandello expresses his disappointment that Il Duce did not like his libretto for Gian Francesco Malipiero’s opera La favola del figlio cambiato (‘The fable of the changeling son’), which was considered so insulting to church and monarchy that it was immediately banned.22 Later in 1934, the Real Italian Academy organised the fourth Volta Conference on dramatic theatre, with the express aim of disseminating Italian genius abroad, in accordance with the regime’s policy for publicising the moral and cultural renewal of the nation. The convention involved prestigious international artists and intellectuals, such as the dramatists Jacques Copeau and Gerhart Hauptmann, actor and set designer Edward Gordon Craig, and architect Joseph Gregor. The aim, as with every Volta Conference, was to legitimise the ‘fascistisation’ of culture and sciences. Pirandello was nominated president of the conference on 9November 1933, while Gabriele d’Annunzio was involved, at Mussolini’s request, in the staging of his La figlia di Iorio (‘The daughter of Iorio’), directed by Pirandello. Given their public hostility towards one another, the pairing of Pirandello with D’Annunzio created quite astir. Pirandello was in the habit of making parodies of D’Annunzio’s heroes, tearing his experimental works to shreds.23 However, with the careful planning of Silvio D’Amico and Atonio Bruers, an ex-legionary who had already acted as mediator between Mussolini and D’Annunzio at Fiume, these differences were resolved. D’Amico and Bruers arranged apublic reconciliation between the two writers through apress campaign managed by Galeazzo Ciano. Pirandello’s letters to Marta Abba on 2 and 9March 1934 attest to the spirit of animosity and mutual disdain in which he regarded the project; nevertheless, he managed to hire the actress, assuring her generous remuneration, and putting her sister to work as well. Despite common fears of the controversies in cinema, sport, and radio, Pirandello limited his opening statements, on 8October 1934, to an argument on the necessity of amass theatre. In his closing speech, he praised Il Duce and defined him as ‘agreat creative mind capable of bringing together and kindling the minds of the Italian people’.24 If the play itself was not atotal failure, nor could it be considered asuccess, according to Gordon Craig, who judged it ‘not very good theatre’ made up of naïve set designs, weak performances, poor direction and ‘avery meager outcome’ (Pedullà 1991, pp.31–51).25 In spite of his many reasons for getting his plays produced, Pirandello would steadfastly defend the war in Ethiopia, even at the expense of his own profits and 22 The central censorship was instituted in 1931 with the aim of controlling the texts performed as plays. 23 In the past, in La Critica 18.12.1895, Pirandello had considered as ‘extremely ridiculous’ Le vergini delle rocce: cf. Fried 2014. 24 ‘Discorso del presidente del convegno S.E.Luigi Pirandello’. In: Reale Accademia d’Italia Fondazione Alessandro Volta: Atti dei convegni. IV convegno di lettere 8–14 ottobre 1934. 25 Craig was afamous English actor, set designer, director, and producer of theatre. OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 53 image, both in England and in the United States. In his letter of 21July 1935, he writes that he was immediately beset upon his arrival in New York by amultitude of reporters and photographers: ‘Here Ifound the whole press antagonising our feat in Africa, in the name of infamous democratic principles. But Istood my ground with everyone […] Idon’t know how much this fact might be useful to my affairs, but Idon’t care!’ He makes similar remarks in an earlier letter dated 7July 1935, writing, ‘Idon’t care; what Icare about above all is that Italy overcome all difficulties and obstacles and win!’ After winning the Nobel Prize, it seemed that Pirandello’s project for the foundation of anational theatre would be rejuvenated, and Pirandello enthusiastically describes his meeting with Il Duce to Marta Abba in aletter of 19February 1935, proposing that the next theatrical season open on the anniversary of the march on Rome. The renewal of his collaboration with Bottai further strengthens his conviction: ‘it seems we have finally arrived at our dream’.26 But the dream would soon vanish, and in aletter dated 14January 1936, Pirandello realises that the fascist regime will give priority to Cinecittà, in order to produce propaganda movies for the masses (whereas the theatre is considered amedium for the elite). Given the failure of the project, Marta Abba decided to leave Italy to work abroad. In our opinion, this separation, which is definitive, threw Pirandello into ‘an abyss of endless sadness’ and adepression that will give him the sensation that he is ‘sinking’. In the last letter before his death, Pirandello writes to Abba: ‘when Ithink of the distance, Ifeel myself falling into my atrocious solitude, as into an abyss of despair’ (4December 1936). ‘LA VITA CREATA’ 1923: THE PATH FROM ARTISTIC TO POLITICAL FORM One of the central ideas of Pirandello’s essays is that life creates aform in which to exist, but that this form, in turn, imprisons and sentences life to death. For this reason, art cannot assume its objective representation as main parameter27 because this would then hinder the ‘free spontaneous and immediate motion of the form’.28 Consequently, according to Pirandello, artistic creation does not consist in reproducing reality, but in inventing afine and original form, distinct from the simple reproduction of models without originality or sentiment, and equally free from any social-historical or anthropological conditioning. The artistic creation conveys the subjective elements of consciousness, in which sentiments and representations are connected, which means in turn that the artistic product must be subjected to modifications in the process of becoming awork of art, whose truth is formed by fantasy. According to Pirandello, art is not knowledge but involves rather the mutation of things: creation and form interact with sentiment and the psychic material, and representations cannot transcend sentiments, impulses, or memory. For these reasons, in Pirandello’s 26 See also the letters on 14.2.1935 and 17.2.1935. For more about the collaboration with Bottai, see the letters on 1.3.1935; 18.4.1935; 8.4.1935; 17.4.1935. 27 See the writer’s reflections against naturalism and its concept of art as the objective representation of nature, written in 1908 (Pirandello 1960b). 28 Ibid., p.200. OPEN ACCESS 60 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 arises from the act of declaring one’s freedom— akind of auto-determination realised by Mattia Pascal when he reinvents himself as Adriano Meis, the new man. This idea is linked to the domain of instrumental reason, and implies conceiving of others as afunction of the self, and the whole community from the same perspective. The outcome is arelativism that involves an apparent respect for other people’s values but is concentrated on personal realisation, with the effect that it takes the subject out of any concrete lived or historical reality, reducing everything to what is useful to the self: Iwas alone now, and no one on the earth could be more alone than I, with every tie dissolved, every obligation removed, free, new, completely my own master, without the burden of my past, and with the future before me, which Icould shape as Ipleased (2, 45).39 The self of Mattia Pascal appears closed in its shell, and his behaviour is linked to aconventional code that protects him from others and prevents any dialogical relationship: For that matter, Iwas living with myself and by myself almost exclusively. Ioccasionally exchanged afew words with hotel clerks, with waiters or fellow guests, but never out of any desire to stir up aconversation (2, 51).40 This idea of freedom, totally concentrated on the self, has unavoidable repercussions on his political tendencies, since one’s act of self-realisation may come into conflict with those of others, perceived as simply mean-spirited or troublesome. In social terms, this feeling is diametrically opposed to any sense of connection to acommunity. The egocentric modalities of self-realisation culminate in asense of unlimited power and freedom: ‘l’anima mi tumultuava nella gioja di quella nuova libertà’ (‘my soul was running riot, in the joy of this new freedom’) (2, 47), aradical freedom without constraints. But it is not long before this liberty will ring false, since it nourishes and is nourished by apessimistic view of the world. Mattia Pascal becomes aware of the ‘fraud’ of his own ‘illusion’. The daily life of Mattia Pascal turns out to be intertwined with elements from the cultural and historical context of the main character and his story, namely the attack on democracy in response to the drunk man and the attack to science synthesised by the invective ‘Acurse on Copernicus!’ These attacks recall the cultural and politi39 ‘Ero solo ormai, epiù solo di com’ero non avrei potuto essere su la terra, sciolto nel presente d’ogni legame ed’ogni obbligo, libero, nuovo eassolutamente padrone di me, senza più il fardello del mio passato econ l’avvenire dinanzi, che avrei potuto foggiarmi apiacer mio.’ The numbers at the end of each cited text from Il fu Mattia Pascal refer to the page and line of the first edition of the novel (published periodically in La Nuova Antologia from 16April to 16June 1904) as it is memorialised within the Banca Dati 800–900 at the C.N.R. Institute O.V.I. (Opera Vocabolario Italiano) in Florence. 40 ‘Vivevo, per altro, con me edi me, quasi esclusivamente. Scambiavo appena qualche parola con gli albergatori, coi camerieri, coi vicini di tavola, ma non mai per voglia d’attaccar discorso.’ OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 61 cal tendencies of the period in which Pirandello was writing this book, and point to amore general conception of life. Copernicus caused everything to be useless from the time in which the Earth was no more the centre of the universe and human beings were reduced to ‘infinitesimal atoms’ (1, 589) thus transforming human history into the ‘stories of worms’: Are we or are we not on akind of invisible top, spun by aray of sunshine, on alittle maddened grain of sand, which spins and spins and spins, without knowing why, never reaching an end, as if it enjoyed spinning like this, making us feel first abit of heat, then abit of cold, making us die— often in the awareness that we have committed only aseries of foolish acts— after fifty or sixty spins? Copernicus, my dear don Eligio, Copernicus has ruined humanity forever. We have all gradually become used to the new idea of our infinite smallness, and we even consider ourselves less that nothing in the universe […] Stories of worms, at this point, our stories (1, 588).41 These themes were anticipated in Pirandello’s short story ‘Pallottoline’ (1902), in which Jacopo Maraventano, professor at the meteorological observatory, is indifferent to the daily problems of his wife and daughter but completely fascinated by space, considering the Earth as amicroscopic point in cosmic space, avery small ball indeed, where his daughter and every human being is no more than ‘an invisible little worm’. The attack on Copernicus is, in our opinion, an attack on modernity. The socalled scientific revolution progressively frees humanity from tradition, from amedieval conception of the world, and, after some time, leads to the two revolutions of the 19thcentury: the first in which Darwin declares that man is not different from the animals; the second in which Freud introduces his concept of the self. Pirandello’s attack on modernity takes shape through aparticular conception of science in which there is no real progress, only ‘the illusion of making existence easier and more comfortable’ (2, 59). It is with words like these that Adriano Meis speaks in an electric bus to a‘poor man’, happy to ride around Milan for the price of ‘two coins’: Why this clatter of machines? And what will man do when machines do everything for him? Will he then realise that what is called progress has nothing to do with happiness? Even if we admire all the inventions that science sincerely believes will enrich our lives (instead they make us poorer, because their price is so high), what joy do they bring us, after all? (2, 58–59)42 41 ‘Siamo onon siamo su un’invisibile trottolina, cui fa da ferza un fil di sole, su un granellino di sabbia impazzito che gira egira egira, senza saper perché, senza pervenir mai adestino, come se ci provasse gusto agirar così, per farci sentire ora un po‘ più di caldo, ora un po‘ più di freddo, eper farci morire— spesso con la coscienza d’aver commesso una sequela di piccole sciocchezze— dopo cinquanta osessanta giri? Copernico, Copernico, don Eligio mio, ha rovinato l’umanità, irrimediabilmente. Ormai noi tutti ci siamo apoco apoco adattati alla nuova concezione dell’infinita nostra piccolezza, aconsiderarci anzi men che niente nell’Universo […] Storie di vermucci, ormai, le nostre.’ 42 ‘Perchè tutto questo stordimento di macchine? Eche farà l’uomo quando le macchine faranno tutto? Si accorgerà allora che il così detto progresso non ha nulla ache fare con la OPEN ACCESS 62 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 In this way, the value of the discovery of electricity by Benjamin Franklin is vastly trivialised, totally ignoring the complex work of research that is behind the advancement of scientific knowledge. This manner of presenting science belongs to Pirandello’s general view of human existence, in which questions are raised to which scientific knowledge is not able to provide any answers, an argument which he had previously raised in Saggi, and subsequently returned to in various writings. When science— which gives rise to the modern as the process of humanity’s liberation from domination— is trivialised and made empty, democracy may soon follow, insofar as it represents, on apolitical level, the same process of liberation from absolute powers, in favour of anew basis for considering social categories previously excluded and ignored. From the condition of individual unease, due to the difficulty of obtaining total freedom (in the character of Adriano Meis), Pirandello seems to extend his own perception to amore general condition, that the lack of liberty is produced by democracy itself.43 The real cause of all our sufferings, of this sadness of ours, do you know what it is? Democracy, my dear man, democracy, that is, the governance of the majority. Because when power is in the hands of asingle man, this man knows he is one and must make many happy; but when the many govern, they think only of making themselves happy, and the result is the most absurd and hateful of tyrannies: atyranny masked as freedom (3, 254).44 In this sudden outburst by Meis, the definition he presents of democracy as ‘tyranny masked as liberty’ is announced by the negative emotional tone created by the term ‘sadness’ (tristezza), that percolates over the rest of the novel. The intended definition is grounded on the semantic effects rising from aplay of opposites: the commonsense meaning, attributed to the word ‘tyranny’ (tirannia), causes the word to lose its nature as antonym of democracy; the alternation of ‘one’ (uno) and ‘many’ (molti) undermines the distinction between democracy and tyranny; the link to freedom embodied in the word ‘democracy’ is broken, and the technical politically accepted meaning of people’s power is obscured as well, insofar as democracy becomes the opposite of freedom. It acquires ameaning mediated by the commonsense meaning of tyranny, further contaminated by features of sadness that throw acertain greyness onto all judgements, onto the failure of the ideal of democracy, and onto the necessity to escape astagnation that would exclude every impulse of the nation. The used language felicità? Di tutte le invenzioni, con cui la scienza crede onestamente d’arricchire l’umanità (ela impoverisce, perchè costano tanto care), che gioja in fondo proviamo noi, anche ammirandole?’ 43 Lucignani 1999, p.168, finds in the piece of the drunk man the ‘distant origins’ of Pirandello’s fascism. 44 ‘la causa vera di tutti inostri mali, di questa tristezza nostra, sai qual è? La democrazia, mio caro, la democrazia, cioè il governo della maggioranza. Perchè, quando il potere è in mano d’uno solo, quest’uno sa d’esser uno edi dover contentare molti; ma quando imolti governano, pensano soltanto acontentar se stessi, esi ha allora la tirannia più balorda epiù odiosa: la tirannia mascherata da libertà.’ OPEN ACCESS LUCiANA bRANDi — UbALDO CECCOLi — CLOTiLDE bARbARULLi 63 tends to guide the mental attitude towards the word ‘democracy’: on one side its theoretical and historic dynamic is ignored, on the other side it is renamed as the governance of the majority, inducing the reader to adopt ajudgment of value, and to adhere to aprecise view of the world that takes no heed of history. It is in this loss of memory that Pirandello’s tyranny— atyranny masked as freedom— can be understood. The information conveyed by the word democracy looks like an objective political definition, but at the same time it has the illocutionary force of awarning that forces the reader to give an appraisal and make achoice. The attack on modernity and democracy in Il fu Mattia Pascal speaks clearly to arejection of its contemporary world. The protagonist must abandon his search for radical freedom and fulfilment as a‘totally new man’ in face of the impossibility of avoiding the social rules of life. Pirandello does not consider the human condition as aproduct of historical conflicts and contradictions but links them to the opposition between life and form, following the idea, proper of certain cultural philosophical contexts of the period, that forms alone exist— not objective reality. These forms are necessary for the emergence of the event of life. At the same time, however, they are perceived as constraints that one strives in vain to overcome. In this sense, identity itself, conceived as an internal artifice, turns out to be aloss of identity: Mattia Pascal, returning to Miragno, does not know who he is, as he awaits his ‘third, last and final death’ (1, 587). The subject, reduced to the sense that he is no one, is compelled to search for stable external reference points— or for another person— that he can rely on. Mattia Pascal is the portrayal of so many men in grey, frightened in the face of social conflicts, enduring anever-ending wait for personal realisation, compelling them to search for an anchor against the chaos, and for asolution to come from the outside. When fascism comes, it is recognised as the answer to the long wait of all themen in grey. LITERATURE Aguirre d’Amico, Maria Luisa: Album Pirandello. Mondadori, Milano 1992. Asor Rosa, Alberto: Storia d’Italia, vol.4. Einaudi, Torino 1974. Barbina, Alfredo: Bibliografia della critica pirandelliana (1889–1961). Le Monnier, Firenze 1967. Borsellino, Nino: Il dio di Pirandello: creazione esperimentazione. Sellerio, Palermo 2004. Canali, Mauro: Il delitto Matteotti: Affarismo epolitica nel primo governo Mussolini. il Mulino, Bologna 1997. Farias, Victor: Heidegger eil nazismo. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1988. Faye, Emmanuel: Heidegger, l’introduzione del nazismo nella filosofia. L’Asino d’oro, Roma 2012. Fichera, Ada: Luigi Pirandello: Una biografia politica. Polistampa, Firenze 2017. Fried, Ilona: Il Convegno Volta sul teatro drammatico. Titivillus, Pisa 2014. Giudice, Gaspare: Luigi Pirandello. Utet, Torino 1963. Hirschman, Albert O.: Retoriche dell’intransigenza. il Mulino, Bologna 1991. von Hofmannsthal, Hugo: L’Austria el’Europa. Marietti, Casale Monferrato 1983. Lucignani, Luciano: Pirandello, la vita nuda. Giunti, Firenze 1999. Mandelli, Riccardo: Al casinò con Mussolini: Gioco d’azzardo massoneria ed esoterismo intorno all’ombra di Matteotti. Lindau, Torino 2012. Pagnini, Maria: Né miele né ape: Il colonialismo italiano in Libia. SoleOmbra, Firenze 2018. OPEN ACCESS 64 SLOVO A SMYSL 38 Pedullà, Gianfranco: Edward Gordon Craig ela mancata riforma del teatro italiano. Il castello di Ellsinore 4, 1991, no.10, pp.31–51. Pedullà, Gianfranco: Il teatro italiano nel tempo del fascismo. il Mulino, Bologna 1994. Petronio, Giuseppe: ‘Il fu Mattia Pascal’: Pirandello 1904. Problemi 77, 1986, pp.244–262. Pirandello, Luigi: Il fu Mattia Pascal. La Nuova Antologia, 16. 4.–16.6.1904. Pirandello, Luigi: L’umorismo. In idem: Saggi, poesie scritti varii. Mondadori, Milano 1960a, p.17–160. Pirandello, Luigi: Soggettivismo eoggettivismo nell’arte narrativa. In idem: Saggi, poesie scritti varii. Mondadori, Milano 1960b, p.183–206. Pirandello, Luigi: Teatro eletteratura. In idem: Saggi, poesie scritti varii. Mondadori, Milano 1960c, p.984–990. Pirandello, Luigi: Saggi einterventi. Mondadori, Milano 2006. Pirandello, Luigi: Lettere aMarta Abba, 1925–1936. Mondadori, Milano 2013. Providenti, Elio: Pirandello impolitico: Dal radicalismo al fascismo. Salerno ed., Roma 2000. Saitta, Armando: La civiltà contemporanea, vol. III. Laterza, Bari 1962. Scarpellini, Emanuela: Organizzazione teatrale epolitica del teatro nell’ Italia fascista. La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1989. Venè, Gian Franco: Il capitale eil poeta. Sugar, Milano 1972. OPEN ACCESS