Daniela La Penna

'Cercatemi e fuoriuscite': Biography, Textuality, and Gender in Recent Criticism on Amelia Rosselli

1 Variazioni belliche (Milan: Garzanti, 1964 and Rome: Fondazione Piazzolla, 1995), Serie ospedaliera (Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1969) which includes the long poem La libellula (1958), Documento (1966–1973) (Milan: Garzanti, 1976), Primi scritti 1952–1963 (Milan: Guanda, 1980), Impromptu (Genoa: San Marco dei Giustiniani, 1981 and 2003; and Rome: Mancosu, 1993), Appunti sparsi e persi (1966–1977) (Rome: Aelia Laelia, 1983, and Rome: Empirìa, 1997), Diario ottuso 1954–1968 (Rome: Empirìa, 1987), Sonno-Sleep, translated by Antonio Porta (Rome: Rossi e Spera, 1989) and Sleep: poesie in inglese, translated by Emmanuela Tandello (Milan: Garzanti, 1992). Amelia Rosselli’s literary journalism is now collected in Una scrittura plurale: saggi e interventi critici, ed. by Francesca Caputo (Novara: Interlinea, 2004). Amelia Rosselli’s poems, with the exclusion of Sleep and Diario ottuso, are collected in Poesie, ed. by Emmanuela Tandello (Milan: Garzanti, 1999). The Mondadori ‘Meridiani’ edition of Rosselli’s oeuvre, under Andrea Cortellessa’s general editorship, is due in 2011. ‘Cercatemi e fuoriuscite’: Biography, Textuality, and Gender in Recent Criticism on Amelia Rosselli

Aretusa: continuity, rupture and space for intervention (1944–46)

AbstractThis article focuses on the cultural activity of Aretusa (1944–46), a journal that was deeply connected to the inner circle of philosopher and politician Benedetto Croce (1866–1952). The article analyses the role played by periodical editors Francesco Flora (1891–1962) and Carlo Muscetta (1912–2004) in shaping the mission and direction of this journal. By drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, and the notion of hysteresis in particular, this study details the factors influencing the aesthetic dispositions, political positioning and the wider impact of historical circumstances on the cultural practice of each editor while at the helm of the review.Abstract This article focuses on the cultural activity of Aretusa (1944–46), a journal that was deeply connected to the inner circle of philosopher and politician Benedetto Croce (1866–1952). The article analyses the role played by periodical editors Francesco Flora (1891–1962) and Carlo Muscetta (1912–2004) in shaping the mission and direction of this journal. By drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, and the notion of hysteresis in particular, this study details the factors influencing the aesthetic dispositions, political positioning and the wider impact of historical circumstances on the cultural practice of each editor while at the helm of the review.

Introduction: rupture and continuity in the Italian literary field 1926-1960

This special issue of Italian Studies, entitled Continuity and Rupture in the Italian Literary Field 1926– 1960, is the third of a series of guest-edited volumes addressing the role played by periodicals in Italian twentieth-century literary culture. Like its predecessors, this volume too is the result of the research carried out as part of the Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded project Mapping Literary Space: Literary Journals, Publishing Firms, Intellectuals in Italy 1940–1960 (2012–2015).1 Similarly, this issue continues the discussion on how periodicals react and adapt to political and institutional pressures, by selecting and orienting aesthetic, political, and cultural interventions into topical debates of the day. It does so by contributing rigorous archive-based explorations of key journals, which shaped the Italian literary discourse in the years under scrutiny. Thus the volume intends to re-evaluate journals which, emerging from localised literary milieux, contributed to nurturing literary talents, to shaping the debate on disinterestedness and the autonomy of the arts from the field of power, and – with various degrees of success – to engaging with foreign literatures and transnational exchanges of ideas. Taken as a whole, the articles here collected explicitly engage with the journal’s action in local, national, and international cultural networks, from Solaria’s inception in 1926 to the demise of Botteghe Oscure in 1960. In this sense, the chronological spectrum of this guest-edited issue ensures that, for instance, we can identify the main phases of the development of a disinterested, and seemingly apolitical, approach to the role of the arts, cutting across Solaria, Letteratura, and Botteghe Oscure, linking together Florence, Rome and the various foreign republics of letters with which these journals dialogued over the years. However, a rigorous discussion of the factors that contributed to the emergence and consolidation of the discourse of disinterestedness during the Fascist regime and in the early Republican years must take into account the rise of competing narratives and intellectual forces that voiced an increasing discomfort with this posture and, therefore, elaborated an alternative ideologically inflected model of cultural intervention. The Florentine literary field in the years under scrutiny is a test case for the interaction of these evolving, competing paradigms. Given its exemplarity, several of the contributions in this volume refer to literary experiences which originated in Florence, and from this city made substantial contributions to the national literary discourse. The contributions gathered in this special issue do not claim to offer a comprehensive account of periodical culture in Italy but present a number of case studies to illustrate how networks, institutions, and individuals interact behind the journal’s printed page and how these interactions shape the journal’s message.This special issue gathers together articles which explicitly engage with the journal’s action in local, national, and international cultural networks, from Solaria’s inception in 1926 to the demise of Botteghe Oscure in 1960. The chronological spectrum of this guest-edited issue ensures that, for instance, we can identify the main phases of the development of a disinterested, and seemingly apolitical, approach to the role of the arts, cutting across Solaria, Letteratura, and Botteghe Oscure, linking together Florence, Rome and the various foreign republics of letters with which these journals dialogued over the years

Habitus and Embeddedness in the Florentine Literary Field: The Case of Alberto Carocci (1926–1939)

This article intends to show how the notion of embeddedness, a concept derived from network theory, can improve our understanding of how a journal’s reliance on regional and national intellectual n...Abstract This article intends to show how the notion of embeddedness, a concept derived from network theory, can improve our understanding of how a journal’s reliance on regional and national intellectual networks impacts the journal’s performance. The study takes as test case Alberto Carocci’s editorship of Solaria. It also discusses – to a more limited extent – Giacomo Noventa (La riforma letteraria), and Berto Ricci (L’Universale). The study shows how uneven distribution of social capital (connections, links, etc.) across the members of the editorial board affects the journal’s embeddedness in existing networks. The article closes by arguing the need to focus on how journal editors develop their networks as a reaction to political pressure and in order to sustain competition in the marketplace.

Mediating culture in the Italian literary field 1940s–50s

Abstract This introduction lays out the scholarly and methodological context in which to situate the contributions to this special issue. By combining a rigorous scrutiny of hitherto untapped archival sources with a re-examined application of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture within the field of periodical studies and publishing history in Italy (1940s–50s), the studies illuminate the complex ways in which journals, periodical editors and the connected publishing houses negotiate cultural practice in a literary field increasingly dominated by the polarization of political discourse.

Culture nazionali e narrazioni straniere. Italia: 1903–1943

electoral success has not created a new subculture (‘Blue Veneto’) capable of replacing the defunct old one. The long transition, however, seems to proceed, especially with the elections of 2008, toward a new ‘reterritorialization’ of the vote, just in the two subcultural areas. On the basis of his case studies, Almagisti concludes that the quality of Italian democracy has deteriorated. The decline was fueled by many phenomena; the peculiar structure of the communication system, the strength of the executive over Parliament and, most importantly, the transformation of political parties. Signs of change, due to the effects of bipolarity and decentralization, are not lacking, but the future of democratic quality, given the characteristics of the Italian political system, mainly depends on the ability of parties to act as a ‘hinge’ between society and institutions. ‘The work of mediation and translation of questions, interests and identities from the parties to the political system,’ writes Almagisti, ‘is an unavoidable phase to achieve higher levels of accountability and responsiveness.’ And, therefore, ‘the improvement of the connections between society and party institutions is a necessary step for a democracy that wishes to increase its quality’ (p. 320). In many ways, Almagisti’s book may seem like an ‘outdated’ celebration of the role of parties in an era of ‘anti-politics’. Despite this, his research has many merits; it successfully attaches empirical evidence (concerning local subcultures) to a fundamentally theoretical investigation of democracy. It also assesses social capital in a sophisticated manner by accepting that its effects are unstable and that it can undermine democractic legitimacy. There is another interesting element in the study of Almagisti, which concerns how to study the ‘political culture’ of a local system. Unlike a large tradition, Almagisti (in this case following a precedent set by Percy Allum), believes that the ‘political culture’ cannot be distinguished from the overall ‘culture’ in a local context. But above all, he believes that the internal features of a ‘subculture’ may be reconstructed only with a view centered on the local dimension, able to grasp the importance of the symbolic, collective identity and ethos of a community. This view implies that internal features of a subculture are not just inherited and preserved; they can be changed in a way that will affect institutions. Almagisti’s attention to values and what Giovanni Sartori called ‘axiological capital’ characterizes his investigation and ensures that it is an original piece on the quality of democracy. It is this insight that makes it possible to understand how the foundation of a democracy is not just a set of procedures, but also an endowment of ‘axiological capital’. Almagisti’s framework has influenced our understanding of democratic procedures; hence it has also influenced our understanding of the boundaries, scopes and ‘conditions’ of a democratic regime.