• Editorial Board
• Journal
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Monographs
• Supplements
• Reviews
• Gadda Prize
• Conferences
• Resources
• Gadda Texts
• Archives
• Catalogues
• Bibliographies
• Pocket Gadda
• Glossary
• Search Site
• What’s New
• About Us

Mussolini the culprit?

Angela Gayton

Is Mussolini the culprit of the Merulana crimes? Before making up our minds hastily, let us at least give the Duce a fair trial. We will start, literally, with the prosecution, and then hear what the defence has to say.

The prosecution’s main argument is the same as Gadda’s own. Mussolini during his rule condemned the Italian people to regression and infantile narcissism (Hainsworth). Once out of the shadow (of this imposing father figure?) Italians were again able to reach full emotional maturity (a sort of). Gadda certainly lays the blame with the leader. Hence the obvious conclusion. Any crime committed during the Ventennio can, nay must be pinned on the ruler himself.

The defence takes to the floor, not without a hint of smugness. It knows it has a stronger case. Crimes were committed, of course they were, under Mussolini’s regime, despite the official propaganda and various forms of collective denial. Now, though not strictly anti-fascist Gadda was anti-Mussolini (so at least we assume from the later writings, from Eros and Priapo especially) and would jump at the chance to condemn the Duce on this very count: despite the pretence and the official Word, criminality was still rife!

In a way our man is jealous. Jealous of Mussolini’s massive female fan-base (Hainsworth again). And we all know about Gadda’s track record with women. But we digress. Aren’t we simply looking in the wrong direction, that is?

Take Virginia, for instance – and take her double, her cousin Assunta. There is mounting evidence linking these two women (this one woman) to the murder. If you need any convincing, do go back to the original instalments of Pasticciaccio’s in Letteratura; Ronconi’s stage adaptation also paints the pair as the likely culprit(s).

Or what about Liliana’s husband Remo Balducci? Surely some of the blame must be laid on him for being away on business, always busy womanising somewhere else.

Maybe Liliana (rest her soul) was herself to blame for her tragic death. She belonged with the new sharks – wasn’t she the daughter of one of them? She was guilty of the sins of the fathers, then, and as such deserved her fate. «Si era conceduta al carnefice» – this is a rather strong thing to say. But perhaps she gave in to the murderer out of the acceptance of the death sentence issued against her.

At this stage my client (I do have clients in this metaphor) would like to propose that, in order to find a resolution to our tragic turn of events – a catharsis if you will –, we simply incriminate good old Angeloni. He deserves, does he not?, to have the Merulana crimes pinned on him: being unmarried, childless, and dare we say it, homosexual.

Surely, Angeloni makes the perfect scapegoat. And we would like to bring in Pecoraro at this junction. Or rather, like Pecoraro, we would like to mention the case of the real and really innocent Girolimoni, a court case which inspired Gadda so thoroughly as to even suggest the name Angeloni (indeed a mix of Girolimoni, the accused, and Angelucci, the prosecutor). You think this is no more than a suggestion? Fine.

A further tempting possibility is that Gadda himself is the culprit here. He is, after all, responsible for the book he is writing. Not by chance, then, Dombroski compares Gadda’s pen to a knife: the act of writing (representative of the search for knowledge) amounts to an act of violence, leaving behind a real token, Liliana’s fictive dead body.

Or perhaps, it is the dear readers themselves, why not, to be guilty. It is in fact our reading that perpetrates the crimes. Without it nothing would take place.

Or finally, and perhaps inevitably. It is us, society, each and every one of us, to be guilty, and not just of these crimes, but of ALL crime. As with Liliana’s blood. Our guilt gets everywhere, on Valdarena’s sleeve, under the policemen’s shoes, around the flat. Everyone has got blood on their hands.

In conclusion. We, as the defence, are aware that we have not been able to identify one and one only guilty party. However we also believe we have succeeded in at least exculpating Mussolini.

Verdict. The court rules in favour of the defender. Mussolini is guilty of much, of many things: but not of these crimes. The court also adopts Guglielmi’s ruling. Finding the culprit is irrelevant in this quest. And lucky that this is the case! A different persuasion would bring no better result. Rushing argues that, at best, even the so-called inspector can only be on the verge of so-called knowing. Stellardi agrees. Truth is for ever receding.

Case unsolved.

Court dismissed.