Emilio Gentile

The Sacralisation of politics: Definitions, interpretations and reflections on the question of secular religion and totalitarianism

This article discusses the various historical and theoretical questions that characterise the relationship between religion and politics, and religion and totalitarianism. Given the complexity of this relationship, it limits itself to examining only certain aspects of it. In the first instance, it defines the concepts of the sacralisation of politics and totalitarianism, and examines only those aspects of the latter that connect it directly with lay religion. It does not, therefore, offer any comprehensive interpretation either of totalitarianism or of secular religion.1 Second, it subsequently provides a historiographical verification of these theoretical questions, and examines, by way of various key examples, how the religious dimension of totalitarianism during the interwar period has been perceived and interpreted.

Fascism, totalitarianism and political religion: definitions and critical reflections on criticism of an interpretation

This essay presents a synthetic account of the authors interpretation of fascism as a modern, nationalist, revolutionary, anti‐liberal and anti‐Marxist phenomenon that he has elaborated on the basis both of original research and of an innovative redefinition of the concepts of totalitarianism and political religion and their interrelationship. Having demonstrated the incoherence of some negative critiques that have given a distorted account of this theory, it engages with the principal constructive criticisms that have been made of it. This leads to further clarification and refinement of the thesis that totalitarianism constitutes one, but not the sole, expression of the sacralisation of politics in the age of modernity.

Political religion: a concept and its critics – a critical survey

This paper is a critical survey of the debate on civil and political religions, and a reappraisal of the main issues dealing with the different views on the relationships between politics and religion, beyond the traditional experiences of the Church and State associations in the form of established religion or religious policy of the sovereign. The author give relevance to the modernity of the process of the sacralization of politics and to its various permutations in contemporary age, since the age of the democratic revolutions of the 18th century to the present time. In this perspective, the author proposes a redefinition of the concept of civil and political religions, by considering the different approach to the religious phenomenon, that cannot be confined only to the dimension of the divine, but has to be broadened to the dimension of the sacred. In the conclusion, the author reiterates his own definitions of civil and political religions and the different historical combination of these secular religions with the traditional religions, which is one of conflict or of syncretism according to historical situations.

Mussolini's charisma*

Summary Mussolini was the prototype of twentieth‐century charismatic dictators. His personal charisma antedated the founding of Fascism and the formal construction of collective charisma through the movement and the personality cult. First forged in the socialist movement, Mussolinis charisma assumed a new guise when he became a supporter of Italys intervention in the First World War. He acquired an aura for the third time as Fascist leader. There were always tensions between the Duce and Fascism as the latter embodied the collective charisma of a movement. Nevertheless, Fascist ideology and culture incorporated the idea of the charismatic leader as a focus and source of authority on the model of the Catholic Church. Although it was difficult by the 1930s to distinguish between the believers exaltation and courtly adulation, Mussolini exercised a personal charisma for many Fascists even after his death.

New idols: Catholicism in the face of Fascist totalitarianism

Abstract This article explores the attitudes of the Vatican and Catholic culture towards Fascism and Fascisms political religion during the pontificate of Pius XI, in the context of the Catholic churchs rejection of modernity as a new epoch of paganism that took the form of political mysticism. It shows that despite the Concordat of 1929, the papacy reacted with growing alarm to the Fascist regimes ‘sacralization of politics’ that threatened to make Catholic religion a handmaid of the totalitarian state.

Renzo De Felice: A Tribute

On 25 May 1996, Renzo De Felice died at his home in Rome, finally succumbing to an illness which had plagued him for many years. He was 67. In accordance with his wishes, there were no funeral ceremonies, neither religious nor civil. His funeral was strictly private, attended by only a few friends. Its simplicity and reserve were in sharp contrast to the public attention generated by the news of his death. Messages of condolence poured in from the highest state dignitaries, from the President to the parliamentary speakers, and from prominent political and cultural figures. Italian newspapers printed the news of his death on their front pages, devoting considerable space to describing the internationally renowned academic whom they, almost to a man, declared one of the greatest Italian historians of the twentieth century. Foreign newspapers also reported extensively on De Felices death. His studies on fascism had brought him international fame and he had become the bestknown Italian historian outside academic circles. He was praised for his independent spirit, his intellectual courage, the thoroughness of his research and his innovative interpretations which opened up new avenues in the historiography of fascism. Even those who had accused De Felice of trying to rehabilitate fascism and its leader offered a few words of condolence.

Two new books on Fascism. A review, the authors’ responses and the reviewer's comments

This section contains a review by the Italian historian Emilio Gentile of Paul Corners new book on the Fascist Party and public opinion, and of Christopher Duggans intimate history of Mussolinis Italy. The review is followed by responses from Corner and Duggan, and the section concludes with comments by Gentile.

A Revolution for the Third Italy

Benito Mussolini had still not reached 29 years of age when, almost suddenly, at the Congress of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano, [PSI]) held at Reggio Emilia between July 8 and 12, 1912,1 he was transformed from the secretary of Forli’s Socialist Federation to a figure of national political significance. When Mussolini arrived at the Congress he had already gained some notoriety within his own party. As a supporter of the party’s revolutionary wing and in constant disagreement with the reformist national leadership, he had led a revolt by Forli’s Socialists in April 1911.2 Furthermore, in Romagna he had been one of the organizers of demonstrations against the war in Libya and for this had spent from October 14, 1911 to March 12, 1912 in jail.3 The originality of his public speaking and his youth compared with that of the older leaders of the party (Filippo Turati, the leader of the reformists, and Constantino Lazzari, the party’s new secretary, were both 55 years old) were important factors in his success.4

Politics and Religion

Thus, in the area of personal ethics, people are free to think and believe anything they want. Moreover, they are free to practice a high degree of ethical pluralism in their personal life. To use a common phrase, they are free “to do their own thing.” But that doesn’t imply total ethical anarchy. Not everyone can “do his own thing” in every arena of life, so government must set some limits to human behavior.

Dictatorship in History

The Term dictatorship is used in contemporary language to define any type of government, hereditary monarchy excepted, which is based on the unlimited concentration of power in the hands of an individual or a group of people. Orginally the term dictatorship referred only to an extraordinary magistrature of the ancient Roman Republic which is the case of serious danger for the state, it granted full civil and military power to an individual who exercised it for a maximum period of 6 months, according to the rules and functions established rigorously from the constitutional system. In the course of the XIX and especially during the XX century, the meaning of dictatorship has been transformed radically because it has been applied to a form of government and political regime that had nothing in common with the ancient Roman magistrature, except the unlimited concentration of power. Especially during the XX century, with the proliferation of governments dominated by the unlimited power of an individual, the concept of dictatorship took a new meaning, even opposite to the original one. In fact, the contemporary dictatorships almost all the time have an unlimited duration, they work against the existing constitutional system and they place themselves beyond any definition of rules and functions. Except for their common characteristic of being anti-dictatorship, contemporary dictatorships are very different in terms their historical, geographical economical and social situation. This relates to how they arose, the type of organization, the ideology, the behavior, the aims the results and the aoutcome of their historical development.This therefore makes it difficult to propose a general and unifying theory of the dictatorship.