1. Greco, Lorenzo, Censura e scrittura , Il Saggiatore, Milan, 1983. Cesari, Maurizio, La censura nel periodo fascista, Liguori, Naples, 1978.Google Scholar

2. Fabre, Giorgio, L'elenco: censura fascista, editoria e autori ebrei , Zamorani, Turin, 1998.Google Scholar

3. See for example recent studies such as Stone, Marla Susan, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998; Ben-Ghiat, Ruth, Fascist Modernities: Italy 1922–1945, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2001 (reviewed in Modern Italy 8.1). With regard to the publishing industry, there are a number of important studies on individual publishing houses, among which: Enrico Decleva, Mondadori, UTET, Turin, 1993; Mangoni, Luisa, Pensare i libri: La casa editrice Einaudi dagli anni trenta agli anni sessanta, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, 1999. See also Turi, Gabriele, (ed.), Storia dell'editoria nell'Italia contemporanea, Giunti, Florence, 1997.Google Scholar

4. Bosworth, R. J. B., Mussolini , Arnold, London, 2002, p. 295. Bosworth's expression refers to Mussolini's activity as a film censor in the 1930s.Google Scholar

5. An example is the creation and organization of the Enciclopedia Italiana project in the 1920s. For this and similar events one of the best studies is still Philip Cannistraro's La fabbrica del consenso , Il Mulino, Bologna, 1975, pp. 3–171. See also Forgacs, David, Italian Culture in the Industrial Era, 1880–1980, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1990, pp. 57–89 and Tranfaglia, Nicola and Vittoria, Albertina, Storia degli editori italiani, Laterza, Rome–Bari, 2000, pp. 229–406.Google Scholar

6. Letter from Mondadori, Arnoldo to Mussolini, , dated 30 April 1929; in ACS, Segreteria Mussolini, CO, f. 509 568/2.Google Scholar

7. In August 1923, the Press Office was moved from the Ministry of the Interior to the direct control of the Prime Minister's Office. On Cesare Rossi and the Press Office, see Canali, Mauro, Cesare Rossi: Da rivoluzionario a eminenza grigia del fascismo , Il Mulino, Bologna, 1984, pp. 207–68 and Canali, Mauro, ‘La contabilità di Cesare Rossi, capo dell'Ufficio Stampa del governo Mussolini (novembre 1922-maggio 1924)’, Storia Contemporanea, 19, 4, 1988, pp. 719–50.Google Scholar

8. This was already inscribed in Articles 8 and 42 of the Editto sulla Stampa of the Decreto Albertino (1848), and was confirmed by Law 324/10 of 1910.Google Scholar

9. Following the kidnap and murder of Socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti, there was an escalation of measures against the Anti-Fascist press which developed from the Decree Law of 18 July 1924 giving Prefects the authority to suppress a periodical without any previous warning (diffida), to the draconian Single Text on Public Security (Testo Unico di Pubblica Sicurezza) which came into effect with the Royal Decree of 6 November 1926. See Aquarone, Alberto, L'organizzazione dello stato totalitario , Einaudi, Turin, 1965, pp. 3–46. As for the indirect measures adopted to suppress or ‘convert’ Anti-fascist periodicals, see the bibliography on Cesare Rossi mentioned in n. 7, and Giovanna Tosatti, ‘La repressione del dissenso politico tra l'età liberale e il fascismo. L'organizzazione della polizia’, Studi Storici, 38,1, 1997, pp. 217–55.Google Scholar

10. It is interesting to note that, despite their similarity, Article 112 of 1926 placed more emphasis on moral issues whereas that of 1931 concentrated on national sentiment and on ‘the prestige of the Nation and of the Authorities’.Google Scholar

11. The episode is recounted by Leopoldo Zurlo, who at the time was the officer in charge of theatrical censorship at the General Directorate of Public Security and was a very close friend of Carmine Senise, then Deputy Chief of Police. A more direct witness was Baron Pompeo Aloisi, head of the Cabinet of the Foreign Ministry, who made a note in his diary after witnessing Mussolini's angry reaction (Zurlo, Leopoldo, Memorie inutili. La censura teatrale nel ventennio , Ed. Dell'Ateneo, Rome, 1952, p. 252; Aloisi, Baron, Journal, Plon, Paris, 1957, p. 185). For a detailed reconstruction of the event see Fabre, , L'elenco, pp. 24–28.Google Scholar

12. A copy of the circular can be found in ACS, MI DGPS, Massime S4 (provv.). Cannistraro was the first to quote it in La fabbrica del consenso, p. 381; Fabre's L'elenco, thirty years later, has provided the necessary fieldwork to contextualize the importance of this document.Google Scholar

13. All the correspondence related to the circular of 3 April 1934 is held at ACS, MI DGPS, Massime S4 (provv). The file is marked as provvisorio since it is still waiting for accurate cataloguing by staff at ACS.Google Scholar

14. Pavolini's statement can be found in circular 5510 ‘Disciplina delle pubblicazioni non periodiche’, which was sent to all Prefectures on 14 February 1941, in ACS, MI DGPS, Massime S4 (provv.). See also Krieg, Ugo, La legislazione penale sulla stampa , Giuffrè, Milan, 1942, p. 18. This little-known book contains a useful reconstruction of the legislation on publishing. Ugo Krieg worked at the time as legal expert at the Ministry for Popular Culture. The book was prefaced by Gherardo Casini, then Director General for the Press (Direttore Generale della Stampa).Google Scholar

15. For example, this is what happened in the case of the writings of Dino Garrone, edited by Berto Ricci for Vallecchi. The book was first censored by the Florence prefecture, then by MiCup, and finally authorized with different modifications after Ricci presented it to Mussolini. For a full account of this episode see Buchignani, Paolo, Un fascismo impossibile: L'eresia di Berto Ricci nella cultura del ventennio , Il Mulino, Bologna, 1994, pp. 147–51. Numerous examples of Mussolini's interference with theatrical censorship can be found in Zurlo's Memorie inutili. Zurlo would often defer a decision until Mussolini had personally approved his reports (see for example pp. 18, 40, 46, 86 et al.).Google Scholar

16. Staff figures in 1937 are mentioned in a Schema di legge held in ACS, Presidenza Consiglio dei Ministri. Atti 1936–1937, b. 293. As for censorship, we have precise figures for the censorship activity of MiCup only for the years 1937–38. In 1937, for example, 10,217 books were examined, out of which about 160 were subjected to either modifications or entirely suppressed (in ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 95, f. 424; already quoted in Cannistraro, La fabbrica del consenso, pp. 116–17).Google Scholar

17. On the Nazi regime and the German publishing industry see Welch, David, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda , Routledge, London, 1993; Hale, Oron, The Captive Press in the Third Reich, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1964; Barbian, Jan-Pieter, Literaturpolitik im Dritten Reich. Institutionen, Kompetenzen, Betätigungsfelder, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1995.Google Scholar

18. References to oral notifications can be found scattered in the MiCup documentation at ACS and ASMI; four are quoted by Fabre in L'elenco , pp. 41, 311, 425, 454.Google Scholar

19. The file on Laterza, and Croce, in ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 117, f. 7981 contains ample evidence of the regime's close eye on their activities. Copies of Croce's file in ACS, CO can be found at PRO, GFM36, f. 202. See also Tranfaglia, and Vittoria, , Storia degli editori italiani , pp. 335–57.Google Scholar

20. Mondadori was in the front row in this respect too thanks to the privileged relationship between Mondadori, Arnoldo and Mussolini, . A remarkable success achieved by Mondadori was the state-funded edition of various foreign versions of the illustrated magazine Tempo which was supposed to become the voice of Italian culture in all occupied countries during the war (see Decleva, Enrico, Arnoldo Mondadori , UTET, Turin, 1993, pp. 256–9; see also FM, f. Tempo).Google Scholar

21. Zurlo, , Memorie inutili ; Gaeta, Bruno, ‘Minculpop, censura libri’, Realtà del Mezzogiorno, 11, 1982, pp. 919–31.Google Scholar

22. The law stated that one copy was to be submitted to MiCup, three to the Prefecture, one to the Royal Prosecutor's Office, and three to the Provincial Education Office (Provveditorato agli Studi).Google Scholar

23. Both Cannistraro and Fabre have published a copy of the list ( La fabbrica del consenso , pp. 427–32; L'elenco, pp. 474–81). The German equivalent of this list, named ‘List of Injurious and Unwelcome Works’ (Liste des schädlichen und unerwünschten Schrifttums) had been in circulation since October 1935.Google Scholar

24. Publishers were represented by a member of the Federation of Booksellers (Federazione Commercianti del Libro) and one for the Confederation of (non-commercial) Professionals and Artists (Confederazione Professionisti e Artisti).Google Scholar

25. On Il Bargello see Hainsworth, Peter, ‘Florentine Cultural Journalism under Fascism: Il Bargello’, Modern Language Review , 95, 3, 2000, pp. 696–711. Details of Vittorini's literary and political activity can be found in my monograph, Elio Vittorini: The Writer and the Written, Northern Universities Press, Leeds, 2000.Google Scholar

26. The letter by Carocci, , dated 14 August 1934, can be found in Manacorda, Giuliano, (ed.), Lettere a Solaria , Editori Riuniti, Rome, 1979, p. 524. The second letter, by Vittorini, , dated 16 August 1934, can be found in Minoia, Carlo (ed.), Elio Vittorini: I libri, le città, il mondo: Lettere 1933–1943, Einaudi, Turin, 1985, p. 39; (italics in the original text).Google Scholar

27. The decree spoke of ‘licentious expressions on various pages which, because of their meaning, are contrary to public morality’, in Solaria, 4, 1934, quoted in Anna Panicali, Elio Vittorini , Mursia, Milan, 1994, p. 113.Google Scholar

28. Manoia, , Elio Vittorini: I libri, le città , p. 53.Google Scholar

29. The prize is mentioned by Vittorini, in a letter to the Florence Prefecture, dated 6 October 1936, in ACS, Polizia Politica, f. Elio Vittorini.Google Scholar

30. A more detailed analysis can be found in Rodondi, Raffaella, Il presente vince sempre , Sellerio, Palermo, 1985, pp. 13–86; Greco, , Scrittura e censura, pp. 99–132; Panicali, , Elio Vittorini, pp. 109–29.Google Scholar

31. Greco's essay is perhaps the most perplexing in that, despite his close analysis, he insists that the bawdy passages were politically censored because they challenged the regime's social policies. In my opinion, it is difficult to deny that they simply offended public morality in the mind of the censor. The suggestion that it might have been an excuse to shut down Solaria is unsupported by documentary evidence. If nothing else, Vittorini is partly to blame for this interpretation. In his preface to a postwar edition of Il garofano rosso, in 1948, he stated that the Fascists had censored the fourth instalment (which contains the passages related to the young protagonist's involvement with Fascism); as we have seen, however, it was the sixth and seventh instalments which were censored (the ones containing the episode of the prostitute).Google Scholar

32. The article by Vittorini is entitled ‘Censura letteraria’ and appeared in Il Bargello on 23 July 1934, p. 3 (reprinted in Rodondi, Raffaella (ed.), Elio Vittorini: Letteratura, arte e società , Einaudi, Turin, 1997, pp. 793–5.Google Scholar

33. The correspondence can be found in ACS, Polizia Politica, f. Elio Vittorini.Google Scholar

34. ACS, Polizia Politica, f. Elio Vittorini.Google Scholar

35. ‘Il segreto di Conversazione in Sicilia è solo questo: che mi girano le scatole’. Letter dated 10 May 1938; in Manoia, , Elio Vittorini: I libri, le città , p. 83.Google Scholar

36. FM, f. Vittorini, letters dated 14 March 1933, 27 March 1933 and 9 April 1946. A more detailed analysis of Vittorini's translation activity can be found in Ferretti, Gian Carlo, L'editore Vittorini , Einaudi, Turin, 1992, pp. 4–68, and in my essay ‘Vittorini's American Translations: Parallels, , Borrowings and Betrayals’, Italian Studies, 53, 1998, pp. 67–93. Some interesting considerations on censorship on literature in translation can be found in Rundle, Christopher, ‘The Censorship of Translation in Fascist Italy’, The Translator, 6, 1, 2000, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar

37. On Pavolini's literary and journalistic production see Petacco, Arrigo, Il superfascista: Vita e morte di Alessandro Pavolini , Mondadori, Milan, 1998.Google Scholar

38. The first analysis of the publication of Americana can be found in Giuliano Manacorda's ‘Come fu pubblicata “Americana”’, in Sipala, Mario (ed.), Elio Vittorini: Atti del Convegno Nazionale di Studi , Greco, Catania, 1978, pp. 63–8.Google Scholar

39. The letter can be found in D'Ina, Gabriella and Zaccaria, Giuseppe (ed.), Caro Bompiani: Lettere con l'editore , Milano, Bompiani, 1988, pp. 39–40 (also quoted by Manacorda in ‘Come fu pubblicata “Americana”’, pp. 65–6). Arnaldo Frateili was a fairly popular, pro-Fascist fiction writer publishing with Bompiani. He was not involved in the Americana project but he was asked to add his plea and personally deliver a letter by Bompiani to Pavolini during a visit to MiCup.Google Scholar

40. Cecchi, Emilio, by then a member of the Accademia d'Italia and one of Italy's most famous literary figures, was renowned for his disapproval of the popularity of American fiction in Italy.Google Scholar

41. Letter dated 30 March 1942, in D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 43. In his second book of memoirs, Il mestiere dell'editore , Longanesi, Milan, 1988, Valentino Bompiani quotes Pavolini's letter and surprisingly comments: ‘This requirement was not accepted by us’ (Questa imposizione non fu da noi accettata), p. 121. The facts prove beyond doubt that Bompiani's memory failed him on this particular instance. Moreover, in a letter dated 11 November 1942, Vittorini wrote to Cecchi to reassure him that a negative view of American fiction would have pleased the authorities and would have also pleased him and Bompiani since it would have guaranteed the publication of the book (GV, Fondo Cecchi).Google Scholar

42. Letter from Cecchi to Bompiani, dated 29 April 1942, in D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 45.Google Scholar

43. See D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , pp. 47, 148; and ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 116.Google Scholar

44. Letter dated 22 May 1942; in D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 87.Google Scholar

45. According to his correspondence, Bilenchi had to cancel the meeting because Pavolini was not receiving visits owing to a recent bereavement. In his postwar memoirs, however, Bilenchi reconstructs this event and suggests that he did meet Pavolini, although with no success (‘Vittorini a Firenze’, in Bilenchi, Romano, Amici , Einaudi, Turin, 1976, pp. 136–8).Google Scholar

46. Some critics such as Raffaella Rodondi in her notes to the complete works ( Vittorini: Opere narrative , Vol. 1, Mondadori, Milan, 1974, p. 1,200) have suggested that the different title might have been part of a ploy to ‘smuggle’ Conversazione in Sicilia under the censors’ eyes. However, the fact that, with the Bompiani edition of a few months later, Vittorini returned to the original title Conversazione in Sicilia, would suggest that the title did not present problems of a political nature.Google Scholar

47. Villaroel, Giuseppe, ‘Poeti e prosatori nuovi’, Il Popolo d'Italia , 29 June 1941; Don Ferrante (pseudonym of Mario Alicata), ‘Corriere delle lettere’, Primato, 7, August 1941. Of similar content was also Alberto Moravia's review which appeared in Documento, 4, April 1941.Google Scholar

48. Salce, Luciano, ‘Aspetti di Vittorini’, Roma fascista , 20 October 1941; De Michelis, M., ‘Conversazione in Sicilia di Elio Vittorini’, Il Fascio, 22 November 1941; Chiappelli, Francesco, ‘Conversazione in Sicilia’, Rivoluzione, 8–9, April 1942.Google Scholar

49. Details about the third edition can be found in D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 124. The correspondence between Vittorini and Bontempelli, dated 9–13 July 1942, can be found in the Bontempelli Papers at the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles.Google Scholar

50. Il revisore (pseudonym), ‘Discussione all'Elba di Vittorini’, Roma Fascista , 4 June 1942. It should be noted that in previous weeks, parodies by the same author had appeared teasing the prose style of other writers such as Carlo Bo and Vasco Pratolini.Google Scholar

51. Memo of the Prefecture dated 31 July 1942 at ASMI, Gab. Prefettura, f. Bompiani; Minute of letter to Vittorini, dated 31 July 1942 in AB, f. Vittorini.Google Scholar

52. Bompiani, Valentino, Via privata , Mondadori, Milan, 1973, p. 148; Manoia, , Elio Vittorini: I libri, le città, p. 425. No mention of this episode is made in the Vittorini file at AB, nor in D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani. Google Scholar

53. A veil of mystery surrounds what happened to these archives. We know they existed and that they were meticulously organized. Soon after the fall of the regime, in July 1943, the offices in Milan were raided by a group of unidentified protesters. During the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Mussolini decided not to resuscitate Il Popolo d'Italia. The building was sold to a Milanese businessman but it is not clear what happened to the archives. Mention of this can be found in Pier Giuseppe Murgia's Il vento del nord: Storia e cronaca del fascismo dopo la resistenza (1945–50) , SugarCo, Milan, 1975, p. 36. I have consulted Professor Gentile, Emilio and Paolo Murialdi, Dott. and both agree that neither historians of Fascism nor of Italian journalism have so far discovered what happened to the archives.Google Scholar

54. ACS, Carte Pini, b. 30. Six of the seven articles were published with the pen name ‘Dirus’ whereas one of them, similarly to ‘Una sporca conversazione’, was signed only with three asterisks. The file on Ponti at the Personal Secretariat of the Duce (Segreteria Particolare del Duce) (ACS, SPD, CO 511.102) shows that Ponti had been sending articles and letters to Mussolini since 1936. Mussolini's replies are limited to formal thanks delivered by his personal secretary. Ponti also asked for a private audience in 1938, 1941 and 1943 but it is not clear whether he actually met Mussolini. According to a letter dated 2 February 1942, Mussolini had expressed his approval of Ponti's ideas in the book entitled La casa per tutti (which Garzanti had showed in proofs to Mussolini). In February 1942 Ponti sent Mussolini an article on the Italian ceramics industry which–after a check with the Milan Prefecture as to Ponti's political and moral status–was passed on to Il Popolo d'Italia which published it on 26 March 1942. The beginning of the correspondence between Pini and Ponti, who immediately offered to write anonymous editorials for the paper, also dates back to this period. The limited documentation held at the Fondo Ponti, in Milan, confirms only that the correspondence between Pini and Ponti started in the spring of 1942. I would like to thank Massimo Martignoli, curator of the Fondo, for scanning through Ponti's correspondence and providing me with a condensed account.Google Scholar

55. Gio Ponti's fascism was mainly related to his patriotic feelings. In 1934, he had received the Mussolini Prize from the Accademia d'Italia for his contribution to Italian architecture. He drew the plans for the Faculty of Mathematics at La Sapienza, and lectured Interior Architecture at Milan's Politecnico. Although a sincere Fascist, he was never involved in any political initiative. His collaboration with Il Popolo d'Italia seems to be a consequence of his critical view of the upper classes’ contribution to the war effort. As an architect, he was battling in those years for a campaign to provide cheap accommodation for workers and farmers. He continued to back such causes after the end of the war.Google Scholar

56. ACS, SPD, CO, f. 512.428. Mention of Castelletti's work as anonymous editorialist with Mussolini's approval can also be found in Giorgio Pini’ s memoirs, under the entry 18 February 1939 and 5 February 1940; in Filo diretto con Palazzo Venezia , Cappelli, Bologna, 1950, pp. 189, 202. It should also be remembered that Giuseppe Castelletti's name was in the list of intellectuals who publicly supported the anti-Semitic Manifesto della Razza of 1938.Google Scholar

57. As we know, Mussolini himself would sometimes write anonymous editorials and also encourage young authors to write anonymously for Il Popolo d'Italia. A letter from the Administrative Director of Il Popolo d'Italia to Pini, dated 13 September 1942, informed him that Mussolini disapproved of an anonymous editorial published on 10 September 1942. And it added that ‘The Duce told me to let you know that one has to be very careful when it comes to editorials’ (ACS, Carte Pini, b. 30).Google Scholar

58. 2 August 1942, ACS, Carte Pini, b. 30.Google Scholar

59. Ravasio's ‘mission’ to guard over the morality of the party was made public by Mussolini in his speech to the National Board (Direttorio Nazionale) on 3 January 1942. The reference to Ravasio's collaboration with Pavolini can be found in ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 50. In his report of 17 April 1942, after mentioning Ravasio as being a close collaborator, Pavolini concluded the meeting with an invitation to promote a ‘hard-edged, polemical journalism, but in the wake of a Revolution which carries on without self-criticism and without allowing others to criticize’.Google Scholar

60. ACS, Carte Pini, b. 30.Google Scholar

61. It appears as an appendix of Guerri, Giordano Bruno, Rapporti al Duce , Bompiani, Milan, 1978, pp. 387–406.Google Scholar

62. Guerri, , Rapporti al Duce , p. 397.Google Scholar

63. In his long conversations with Yvon De Begnac, Mussolini mentioned Vittorini on three occasions, every time in a positive context, as one of the promising young authors of his generation. The lack of chronological detail of De Begnac's notes, however, can permit one only to say that these comments were made between 1934 and 1943. See De Begnac, Yvon, Taccuini mussoliniani , Il Mulino, Bologna, 1990, pp. 386, 438, 443.Google Scholar

64. ‘Elenco tratto dalla pratica generale 11 Divieti di diffusione’ (p. 7), in ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione Generale Accademie e Biblioteche, b. 226, f. 1110.Google Scholar

65. I would like to thank Gandolfi, Luisa, at Bompiani, , for supplying me with details of the translation contracts of Conversazione in Sicilia. That the Belgian edition was actually circulated is confirmed by an article by Albert Beguin who mentions buying the translation of the novel while in Belgium in 1943–44 (Beguin, Albert, ‘Deux romans de Vittorini’, Témoignage Chrétien , 14 July 1950).Google Scholar

66. Such a hypothesis is not so far fetched if we consider that Pavolini had already mentioned the possibility of forms of compensation for Bompiani's financial losses caused by his ministry. In a letter of 2 October 1941, concerning two American novels, Pavolini wrote: ‘I would not be against trying to find a way to repay, at least partially, the damage encountered by your publishing house’ (D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 40). On another occasion, following Bompiani's lamentations for the losses incurred in the censoring of Americana, Pavolini replied saying that he would consider compensation in the form of an order of Bompiani books by his ministry (ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 116; quoted in Manacorda, , ‘Come fu pubblicata “Americana”’, p. 40).Google Scholar

67. ACS, MCP, Gab. b. 116 Google Scholar

68. Do-re-mi, (pseudonym), ‘Conversazione in Sicilia’, Il Popolo Fascista , 7 September 1942; Ulivi, F., ‘Asterisco letterario su Vittorini’, Il Bargello, 46 (October 1942); Chiavarelli, Lucio, ‘Caratteri per una nuova letteratura’, Roma Fascista, 8 October 1942.Google Scholar

69. D'Ina, and Zaccaria, , Caro Bompiani , p. 139.Google Scholar

70. Vittorini's first contacts with militants of the PCI date back to the autumn of 1942. However, the police did not seem to be aware of this until he took part to a Communist rally on 26 July 1943.Google Scholar