by S. Pugliese: A Life Revisited
1. The first English-language biography of Silone and the
case “Silone the spy”
The first biography of Silone in English (“Bitter Spring. A Life of
Ignazio Silone”, New York, 2009) has been written by the American
historian Stanislao G. Pugliese after ten years researching and
collecting documents from various sources. It comes to us after the
latest studies on Silone have focused on the case of “Silone the
spy” arousing political-historiographic controversy and media
Pugliese has chosen as his methodology a fluid overview and not a
voluminous report of events weighed down by authoritative passages.
This should leave the reader to decide on controversial arguments
“Bitter Spring” is thus planned as a biography with a broad sweep
and, as such, it is to be seen within the context of the general
historical and literary criticism of Silone’s life and work.
(a) The first phase of the studies on Silone ties up with what
François Furet (“Le passé d’une illusion. Essai sur l’idée
communiste au XXe siècle”, Paris, 1995) calls the “first generation”
of people “disenchanted” with the Soviet regime, disillusioned by
the factional conflicts within the Third International and the
reality of Soviet Russia during Stalin’s time. Silone, an
underground communist, a political exile, sought by the fascist
police, suffering considerable stress over his brother’s
imprisonment and his own poverty, found himself unable to tolerate
any longer the lies and hypocrisy of ‘party interest’. Having got
himself expelled from the Communist Party (as he recounted in
“Uscita di sicurezza”, in 1965) without tying himself to the Italian
Trotskyist faction led by his brother-in-law Pietro Tresso, he began
to expand on the political theories he had already voiced in the
party, sublimating them in the novel “Fontamara” (1933), an epic
revolutionary tale of the “cafoni”, the peasants of Italy’s south.
Apart from its literary merits and strong anti-fascist stance (“the
most powerful and influential work of anti-Fascist literature of the
1930s”, p. 112 of the biography), Fontamara sets out its author’s
political theories regarding the revolutionary role of the
“peasants”. Indeed, Trotsky himself showed he was aware of this in
the famous review written in 1933 on an Italian ship transporting
him on one of the many legs of his exile (p. 121). In this early
period, Silone was, unequivocally, a leading figure of the
anti-fascist culture in exile. He was not only an internationally
successful novelist but also an anti-totalitarian political
theorist, author of such works as “Der Fascismus” (1934) and “La
scuola dei dittatori” (1938). Neither his reviewers nor critics,
fascists and Stalinists were aware of any contradiction between the
contents of his novels, which were unknown and forbidden in fascist
Italy, and his personal life.
(b) A second phase began when Silone returned to Italy in 1944,
having run the Foreign Centre of the Italian Socialist Party
throughout the war and collaborated with OSS to defeat fascism. In a
country where almost all the intellectuals who had been with the
fascist regime had turned to communism, Silone became a leading
figure of the Italian social democracy, as well as a defender of
cultural freedom, against party, economic and clerical links binding
the intellectual class. This was his greatest handicap from the
viewpoint of Italian literary criticism and the major press. The
result was that Silone was reproached for his political ideals and
his novels were disparaged for their literary value, by right and
left alike (“the conservative establishment” and “the cultural
elites of the left dominated by the PCI”, p. 12). Silone, who had
long enjoyed international renown, was instead described in Italy as
an inimportant and incompetent writer.
Literary criticism of Silone began to change with the publication of
“Uscita di sicurezza” (1965) and finally with “L’Avventura di un
povero cristiano” (1968), although this did nothing to alter the
Communist Party’s dislike of the “renegade”.
(c) A posthumous phase started twenty years after Silone’s death.
In Italy Dario Biocca and Mauro Canali built a theory, based on
highly questionable archival documents, that Silone collaborated
with the police during the 1920s and returned to spying at various
points of his life, additionally reviving earlier accusations that
the writer took part in CIA-financed anti-communist cultural
activities during the cold war. A campaign of historical scandal
began depicting Silone as an early fascist spy who wormed his way
into the young communist party and its clandestine activities. A
split formed between Silone’s secret life and his work. As Italo
Calvino would have said, Silone was a “cloven viscount”, with a good
side, his writing, and a bad side, repeatedly and secretly passing
The contrast was too great to be plausible except for the gutter
press and trashy historical research. Help came in the form of
information on presumed mental illness, followed by concocted
psychoanalytical interpretations of some of his works, desperately
seeking minor characters who betray their comrades in the
anti-fascist struggle and imagining thinly-veiled self-confessions
of the author. Silone’s own autobiographical notes written to
explain his tortured abandonment of the communist party are not
interpreted as political memoirs but as brazen cover for a sordid
attempt to distance himself as a spy. The sensation-seeking
historians thus saw Silone’s work as an intricate web of betrayal,
remorse and redemption concealed behind moral, political and
Although eliciting less attention from the media, the historian
Giuseppe Tamburrano has drawn up an itemised reply, highlighting
the complete lack of documentary proof and logical foundation for
the groundless assumption that Silone was a (gratuitous) informer.
Indeed, these accusations were never levelled against Silone,
neither by the fascist government when attacked by the author
worldwide in his writings during the 1930s, nor later by the Italian
communists engaged in tough political debates against one of the
founders and high ranking member of the PCd’I who had left the
Again help came in the form of information on a presumed homosexual
relation between Silone and the police official Guido Bellone.
Too much breaks the camel’s back. It is hard to believe that a
political propagandist and author could praise peasants in the
revolution against fascism on the one hand, while on the other
betraying them repeatedly without anyone, in over 60 years of public
disagreement with fascists, Stalinists and clergy, ever finding out
the truth. Equally hard to believe is that in an Italy where
little remains unknown, the melodrama of Silone’s shameless double
life should come to light twenty years after his death through a
slimy interpretation of police documents either anonymous or
miscellaneously signed and almost all typewritten.
Pugliese’s historiography, an overview of Silone’s life and work,
is therefore particularly important in that it is intended to cover,
with full bibliography and references, all the essential points of
the writer’s personal and intellectual adventure with its shadows
However, the shadows and depth which have been underlined in the
biography, while making the subject very suggestive and the book
interesting to read, nonetheless raise doubts and questions.
2. “The lifelong guilt” !
Pugliese – to distance himself, as intended, from the
historiographical approaches and conflicts – never fails (perhaps
exaggeratedly!) every time a positive moment in the life of the
writer might be over-stressed, to highlight the opposite
possibility, that behind the event might lie contacts between Silone
and the police official Bellone, and thus with the fascist political
The refrain starts very early in the book, from “among Silone’s
personal traumas…his spying” (p. 15), to “if Silone’s ‘original
sin’ was his own collaboration with the secret police” (p. 94), and
continues throughout the book (examples can be found, among others,
on pages 27, 104, 105, 154, 188, 248, 271, 292, 311, 330, and
It includes: Silone in Switzerland “tormented…” and feeling “guilt
over his relationship with Bellone”; Silone’s “never ending
guilt…implanted in his soul”, “his murky past”, the “need for
redemption”, his “lifelong guilt”, and so on. Finally, Silone “by
crafting an ‘emergency exit’ from the party he also freed himself
from bondage to Bellone” (p. 311).
When Silone was imprisoned in Switzerland during the Second World
War for political activism, his fear of discovery of the names of
the socialist comrades in Italy he was in contact with as part of
his duties as head of the Foreign Centre of the PSI was apparently
due, according to Pugliese, to his “never-ending guilt” and the
recollection of his personal experience of fascist police methods
(which Silone described to the Swiss as “the diabolic means of
penetration and corruption”) used to persuade people to become
traitors (p. 154). Was it not obvious that Silone acquired his
familiarity with fascist police methods as an underground communist
and during his role in charge of the party’s Press&Propaganda and
the party’s clandestine tasks?
In the biography, Silone’s refusal in the postwar period to become
a member of the committee for the purge of fascist journalists was
linked to his memory “of his own murky past with Bellone” (p.
188). However, had this been the case, he would have been able as
an insider to take steps to cover up any evidence against him. The
committee functioned perfectly well without him and no information
about Silone emerged. Silone was, quite simply, against anyone who
wanted to make a career of anti-fascism (p. 189, p. 205), just as
he, unlike Koestler, did not make a career out of anti-communism:
“I was once a communist; I am not ashamed of it” (p. 209).
The refrain of fear and guilt about his activity as informer and his
relationship with the Commissario Bellone culminate on page 330 of
the biography. “Silone’s lifelong guilt over his relationship with
Bellone was responsible for some of the most poignant and powerful
fiction of the twentieth century”.
Silone’s lifelong struggle was not against totalitarianism in favour
of justice and liberty but against his own remorse!
This is in direct conflict with the biography itself when it recalls
Silone’s never-ending “mourning” for his “youth” and the “burning
stigmata” he bore for far more idealistic reasons (p. 103).
After all, the “lifelong guilt over his relationship with Bellone”
which supposedly haunted Silone, is not based on any documentary or
historical evidence. It is an assumption that finds no confirmation
3. Embittered spring
An aspect that Pugliese does not neglect for the sake of historical
completeness is the one represented by Silone’s personality and
In order to produce the most complete portrait of Silone, Pugliese
can count on the exclusive testimony of someone who maintains she
was the only person to have known the writer well.
This precious, indeed unique, source does not need to be sifted for
impurities nor filtered for turbidity. The person is Silone’s
widow, a cultured woman, who, above all, has the advantage of
coming from the Anglo-Saxon milieu. She herself has claimed her
different milieu: “I am (with a few exceptions)…experiencing the
Italians at their worst” (pag. 291).
Pugliese reproduces without comment the remarks and
confidences made by Silone’s widow during her last three years, when
her husband had already been dead for 25 years. He scatters them
throughout the book, providing the reader with an abundance of
elements to understand Silone the man.
According to Darina Silone (she always liked to be called by her
husband’s surname and not by her family name, Laracy), Silone had
an “extremely difficult character” (p. 5), he had “many truths” (p.
6), his handwriting was “mysterious and unknowable” (p. 13),
“threatening suicide” (p. 110) and capable of boasting about
himself with a young woman just met in Switzerland by telling her
“stories of every kind” (p. 169). And still: Silone’s “enigmatic
and exasperating personality (p. 177), having “trouble understanding
and pronouncing certain English words; words like ‘truth’” (p. 179),
his “ambiguous character” (p. 180), “a mystery even” to her (p.
181); Silone “contemplated suicide” (p. 273). She had to destroy
his personal correspondence after his death as “no one could ever
understand it” (p. 293).
Actually in his will Silone had made provision for his private
correspondence not to be published, but not destroyed. Besides
letters that don Orione had written to him, there should have been
also numerous letters received over the years from Gabriella
Seidenfeld and Aline Valangin.
Darina Silone describes Silone as a man “suffering not only from
depression, but perhaps schizophrenia as well”, “horrible”, with
“no talent at all for human relationships” (p. 174), often
“cruel”, engaging in “extramarital affairs”, “casual about his
adultery”. The “traditional Madonna-puttana complex” from which,
according to her, Silone suffered, was probably due to his
widowed mother’s “semiprostitution” (!) (p. 175) and finally her
confession “that their marriage was unconsummated” (p. 383).
These statements are untrue.
At the beginning of the slanderous campaign against Silone, before
Darina Silone’s statements, Giovanni Casoli had written in
“L’incontro di due uomini liberi: Don Orione e Silone” (p. 59) that
“since a plausible or at least credible, or not incredible, motive
has not been found because the hypothetical spy Silone never gained
anything from it, not even the smallest relief for his brother
…such a senseless and stupidly dangerous activity could
only serve to indicate he was either clinically mad or gratuitously
amoral, both of which have been disproved, piece by piece, by the
whole of Silone’s life and work.”
While the elderly lady recounts, from her own point of view, the
character and relationships of Silone – displaying no sympathy with
the family tragedies experienced by him as a young man – the
biographer’s unbiased role does not require him to verify her words.
However, with regard to that which the biographer later calls a
“scandalous (mis)reception by the literary establishment in Italy”
(p. 295), when Silone’s widow puts the blame on her husband (“That
situation was Silone’s own fault; his – to say the least – extremely
difficult character.” p. 5), the unreliability of this “embittered”
source becomes more than clear. In fact she seems to ignore the
historical certainty and the incontrovertibility of the fact that
Silone’s literary misfortune in Italy was due to the minority
position of the social-democrats and the intellectuals of “Tempo
Presente” (described in the works of Massimo Teodori) in respect of
the two communist and Christian-democrat blocs.
As to Silone’s “extremely difficult character”, it is well-known
that he had many friends and cultural and political acquaintances in
Switzerland, including Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, and Robert Musil,
as also described in the book (p. 94, 111 etc.). Similarly, he
remained on very friendly terms with a large number of people in
Italy and abroad. There is a huge amount of correspondence, part of
which has not yet been examined. There were also pleasurable
meetings with contributors and writers from “Tempo Presente”.
It certainly wasn’t Silone’s fault that the people in the communist
party with whom he had spent “moments of sublime companionship and
friendship” (p. 211) turned against him. On the contrary, the
communist leader Camilla Ravera, who had shared clandestine
activities with Silone, described him as being “affectionate,
fraternal, and very cordial” (p. 73).
There is much evidence that Silone was courteous and generous in
his relationships. This is clearly shown in the autobiographical
writings and the important epistolary and personal relationship
with the two women who loved him - Aline Valangin, a writer,
pianist, and intellectual, who was a member of the Carl Gustav Jung
club in Zurich (her last letter to Silone was dated 14 August 1978,
fourteen days before his death) and Gabriella Seidenfeld, the
faithful Jewish comrade with whom he shared political ideals and who
loved him till her death (one year before Silone’s). In addition,
there are numerous descriptions of Silone by, among others,
Stefano De Luca, Franca Magnani, Claudio Marabini, Paolo Milano,
Geno Pampaloni and Franco Simongini. Others who knew Silone have
written important studies on him, such as Enzo Bettiza, Luce
d’Eramo, Vittoriano Esposito, Gustaw Herling, Iris Origo, Gisella
Padovani and Margherita Pieracci Harwell. All of them, without
exception, paint a very different picture of Silone’s character,
which can be summarised in the words “discretion and decency” used
by Margherita Pieracci Harwell, Professor of Italian Literature at
the University of Illinois, Chicago, when writing about Silone in
“Un cristiano senza Chiesa”.
In brief, from the recollections of Silone by political comrades in
Switzerland, by social-democrats in Italy, by contributors to
“Tempo Presente”, by his old friends from Marsica (despite being
divided in the postwar period by different political beliefs) and by
his relatives, it can be evinced that Silone maintained excellent
relations with all of them. They were generally of an informal
nature, and very different from those with rival politicians and
intellectuals siding with party apparates.
Many people are still alive and can testify in person.
Of course, one can cite as evidence of a difficult character the
instance when Silone refused to utter a word during a dinner party
(p. 135) or the time in London at an ambassador’s residence when
Silone left the table to follow a football match. Yet, this
behaviour could be forgiven to a man who, having experienced such
exceptional personal and political events, did not bow to certain
As to the fact that he was prudent and wary, like someone used to
looking over his shoulder (p. 221), one need only recall his life as
an underground communist entrusted with clandestine tasks of great
responsibility in Italy and abroad. In addition, one should not
forget the affair of Tresso, his friend and comrade in the communist
party, who later became the husband of Barbara Seidenfeld, and the
impact that his persecution had on Silone. Partly because of his
closeness to Gabriella Seidenfeld, Silone experienced directly the
hunt for the Trotskyist Tresso by the communist agents, his
imprisonment in France, his escape and final execution alongside
three other Trotskyists, by the Stalinists, in a wood close to the
maquis. Furthermore there was Trotzky’s own end and that of
other comrades executed in Switzerland, France and Russia.
There is one point on which all who knew him are unanimous: the fact
that he was often alone. In the biography we read that “Silone had
been as alone in death as he had been in life” (p. 290).
His loneliness both at home and outside in the 1950’s and the
1960’s did not weigh too heavily on him. For Silone, who had been
completely alone since he was fourteen until he met Gabriella
Seidenfeld, loneliness could be something constructive. Writing in
“Tempo Presente” of September-October 1962 about Angelo Tasca,
Silone noted that “suffering loneliness undoubtedly helped to
strengthen his spirit”.
Throughout the 1970’s, his health failing, racked by asthma and
having difficulty moving, loneliness was probably not good for him.
This emerges from the recollections of Enzo Biagi, Giorgio Bocca,
Gustaw Herling, Iris Origo, Margherita Pieracci Harwell as well as
As to a Silone “suicidal”, Darina Silone, who had read everything
of Silone, knew about the melodramatic letter written by Silone in
Switzerland to Aline Valangin, at the end of their tempestuous
relationship. However, in this letter the hint about suicide was a
kind of “intellectual creation”.
In this regard, Silone himself explained in an interview with Enzo
Giannelli on 3 February 1971: “Suicide is an aberration. I
believe that nothing could justify it, neither misery nor
persecution. It is the end of the power of life … I could imagine a
situation ... In “Vino e Pane” there is an anarchist, a musician,
called Uliva who killed himself and before killing himself described
his complete despair over the future of mankind. But this is more
than anything an intellectual creation”.
Even before, in “La Fiera Letteraria” of 11 April 1954, Silone gave
this answer to a question about what he thought of suicide: “It
is one of the many things I find impossible to understand”.
The biography incorporates many elements from the unfinished,
mythical autobiography of Silone’s widow, who was seventeen years
younger than her husband and met him when he was already an
internationally famous writer. Unfortunately, upon their return to
Italy, she was soon traumatised by the lack of social and financial
success in the climate of Silone’s general political and cultural
ostracism by Italy’s clerical-fascist and catholic-communist
society. After the disastrous collapse of some cultural initiatives
launched together, Darina Silone often travelled abroad, especially
in India and Greece, and never cooperated politically with her
husband in daily events and minority initiatives.
The unpublished autobiographical writings (p. 164) are probably the
typewritten texts prepared by Darina Silone at the suggestion of
Dario Biocca, the historian who invented the story of Silone the
double-agent, and distributed widely at the beginning of 2001
under the titles “Religious Experiences” (three pages, March 2001,
also published in full in Corriere della Sera of 25 August
2003 as “L’avventura di Darina, Io povera cristiana”), “Esperienze
Politiche” (five pages, April 2001), and the speech prepared for
India “The Making of an Earth Citizen” (seven pages, January 1989).
Darina Silone seems to claim an inspiration role behind Silone’s
spirituality. She said it was thanks to her that Silone wrote his
call for civil disobedience in 1942, after his future wife had
introduced him to the ideas of Gandhi (p. 179). Again, she claims
she introduced him to Simone Weil and to Père Charles de Foucauld
(p. 259 and p. 281). As to Silone’s pacifism, one need only recall
that he began his political activities at a very young age leading
the protests of the peasants of Marsica against the Great War and
that later he declaimed his pacifism as a young socialist activist.
Regarding Silone’s religious beliefs, he was influenced by the
Christian socialism of the Swiss theologian Leonhard Ragaz,
although he had already experienced the Abruzzi mediaeval
Christianity during his childhood at Pescina. Silone knew that
Simone Weil admired “Pane e Vino”, and as for Charles de Foucauld,
as recalled by Margherita Pieracci Harwell, Silone used to visit a
convent of the Petites Soeurs where a nun was the daughter of an
old friend of his.
As to their marital relations, as recalled by the widow and having
little to do with events that occurred decades before she met
Silone, they have unfortunately been used as evidence to bolster
the lame accusations against Silone by the historian Dario Biocca,
who was also allowed to search Silone’s personal study.
5. In short, a poor wretch !
In addition to the above remarks about some of the questionable
stylistic features of the biography – inserts on the lifelong guilt
for Bellone and inserts on Silone the man, erratically repeated
throughout the biography as a “delenda Cartago” – others can also
In the “Prologue” to the biography, on page 9, there is a portrait
of Silone that leaves one speechless.
Besides being a man who “never had any of the qualities necessary
for a successful political career” Silone “was a difficult
husband, an exasperating friend, a mediocre politician, an aloof
acquaintance, a morose presence in public, a distant and cool
relative, often manic-depressive, sometimes suicidal…”.
In short, a poor wretch!
To this portrait, clearly based on unconfirmed rumors, the author
adds further details.
Silone “painfully shy”! Since this is not the Silone who was
“shy of sexuality” on p. 356, perhaps this statement refers to the
fact that he was well-mannered! And yet the biography does not
neglect a number of incontrovertible facts. In his youth Silone
boldly organised uprising at Pescina (from p. 61); defied the
rectors of religious institutes and made courageous life choices
(p. 66); became secretary of the regional socialist youth at 17,
then secretary general of the USR at 19; afterwards, when he was
one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party at 20 “he was not
intimidated by his more learned comrades” (p. 68); when addressing
his party comrades from the podium “he was confident, almost to the
point of arrogance” (p. 70) and so on during his entire life;
Silone “uncomfortable in the public light and perpetually doubtful
of himself” and “a mediocre politician”! Surely it is not the
Silone “whose ascent through the political ranks of the left was
astonishing” (p. 67), Silone who “refused to be cowed by the
prestige of the Russians” (p.72). On his return to Italy, after the
split in the socialists, he founded a party; he openly
criticised Gramsci’s politics, who had become an icon of the left,
careless that this would aggravate his “ostracism by the cultural
hegemony of the political left” (p. 74); he organised the
Association for Freedom of Culture; he didn’t hesitate to contradict
publicly Sartre and Neruda, and so on.
Perhaps “mediocre politician” refers to the words of
Salvemini: “Silone doesn’t have the qualities of a practical and
cunning political man but he is a splendid moral and intellectual
figure” (p. 191).
No doubt “the pettiness, venality and corruption of the
postwar period” (p. 187) was a million miles away from Silone’s own
sentiments, as were the ambiguities and compromises of the political
parties that revolved around politicians as protectors and providers
of jobs; instead Silone believed that politics should “make
available the tools necessary for education, labor and culture” (p.
210). It was this type of politics to which Silone, by his own
admission, was ill-suited (p. 210).
Should he be considered a “mediocre politician” because, as a
candidate in the 1953 political elections, he failed to get himself
elected? How did he get there, what had happened to cause him to
return to political activism after 1948 when, “disillusioned with
the state of Italian politics”, he had refused to become a
candidate (p. 196)?
Here follows an example of Silone the fighter, who had no skeletons
in his cupboard.
After the publication in London at the end of 1949 of his essay
“Uscita di sicurezza” in the volume of collected works titled “The
God that Failed”, L’Unità and Rinascita published,
respectively in January and May 1950, two attacks by Togliatti
against Silone “the renegade” and against “the six that failed”.
Silone immediately devoted himself to the novel “Una manciata di
more”, which was published in the summer of 1952. The subject
speaks for itself. Through the main character, Silone sets out his
reasons for leaving the Communist Party. In the novel, which is
an accusation against the party apparatus, Togliatti is portrayed in
the party bureaucrat named “the blindfolded mule”. Silone and his
work were immediately the target of bitter criticism by the
communist party, from Salinari in L’Unità in July and August
1952 to Togliatti himself in Rinascita in January 1953
(Silone had only recently also publicly defended Slansky during the
Stalinist trials in Prague).
Silone’s reply, three months later, in May 1953, was to come back
to political activism seeking election in Abruzzo as the
social-democrat candidate standing against the Communist Party.
However, there was nothing he could do against a party whose broad
network in his region of birth – most of the inhabitants kept a
framed picture of Stalin (who had died in March) in the bedroom –
ensured his isolation, and on 7 June 1953 he failed to gain
6. Divergent views
The importance of the biography contributed by Pugliese cannot be
diminished by some misunderstandings, although they need to be
If later we read again of a Silone “haunted by thoughts of suicide
and death much of his life…Tormented by melancholy, depression…” (p.
272), the young Silone must have been just as bad. Silone was
said to have been an “enigmatic child” (p. 35). The origin of that
statement is not known.
Silone’s father died of tuberculosis, from which Silone also
suffered (p. 272 and p. 281). Silone’s father, a very strong man,
like all his brothers, took to his bed with a fever after being out
in heavy rain and died a few days later: antibiotics had not yet
been discovered. Silone suffered throughout his life from acute
bronchial asthma. In Switzerland in the 1930s he was treated for
relapses of bronchial pneumonia (see his correspondence with
Gabriella and with Tasca). “L’attestation médicale” issued by the
Swiss clinic where Silone died runs as follows: “En résumé,
Monsieur I. Silone présente actuellement …insuffisance rénale avec
angiosclérose…qui trouve…son origine dans la toxi-infection trés
ancienne des foyers bronchectasiques (dilatazione patologica dei
bronchi) et dans une retention vésicale…hypertrophie prostatique
Silone “failed to excel academically or even to integrate socially”
(p. 50). Leaving aside Silone’s excellent performance at the
seminary in Pescina and then in various other religious institutes,
including the San Remo institute, perhaps this refers to the fact
that, like his brother, he refused to wear the school uniform, a
cassock, and did not turn the other cheek when he and his fellow
pupils from Marsica were insulted by the pupils from Rome, who
unlike them were neither orphans nor penniless. This is evident
from the letters written by a very young Silone to don Orione
between April 1916 and June 1917, published in the Casoli’s book
mentioned earlier. The young Silone loved to study. In February
1915, one month after the earthquake, while his injured brother was
brought to Rome, Silone resumed his education at Chieti, but in May
the institute was requisitioned because of the war. He even begged
his brother to help him from Rome. In fact in June he entered a
college in Rome. After experiencing the hypocritical education
provided by the religious institutes and hearing news of peasant
revolts throughout Marsica, in June 1917 he left the college in
Reggio Calabria to return to Pescina.
As far as Silone’s cultural knowledge goes and his “formal little
training in literature” compared to Darina Silone’s, he could boast
a culture acquired at the Italian Ginnasio-Liceo, which was very
different, and still is, and greatly superior to that offered by
equivalent schools in the Anglo-Saxon countries. In fact it
included the study, at a very high level, of Latin and ancient Greek
language and literature, philosophy, mathematics, physics, history,
geography and other subjects. Moreover, when he met Darina at the
end of 1941, in addition to personal acquaintances and regular
encounters in the international intellectual milieu, Silone had
already had the opportunity to remedy any possible gaps in his
knowledge of European literature (p. 161).
On Silone’s physical appearance the biography describes him as
“shorter” than Darina Silone (p.162). As every photograph of him
shows, he was a tall man being about 5’ 11” tall and he was by no
means shorter than Darina Silone (attached are two photographs,
Silone and Darina together). His identification sheet at the
Prefecture in L’Aquila, lodged in the Ministry of the Interior’s
files for 1925-1938 - which can be seen on the website - notes
among his distinguishing features that he was “tall”, as later
reports confirm (for example Franca Magnani on p. 90 in “Una
famiglia italiana”, also in the biography, pag. 110). The
inhabitants of Pescina who were short, were generally descendants
of the Sicilian fishermen who came to Lake Fucino following the
Mazzarino family. The Tranquilli family, probably of Norman origin,
were typically very tall compared with the Italian average, and
still are judging from Silone’s grandchildren and
“Exiled in Switzerland in 1930” (p. 27): After Togliatti had
ordered the party leaders to leave Italy in the summer of 1927,
Silone worked for the party in France and travelled also between
Paris and Berlin before settling in Switzerland during 1929.
Torlonia “the local aristocrat” (p. 32): Torlonia was a Roman banker
of French origin who had been granted a licence in 1853 by the
Bourbons to drain Lake Fucino. He accomplished his task during the
second half of the 19th century using French hydraulic
engineers. In 1875 King Victor Emmanuel II gave him the title
“Prince of Fucino”.
“…mysterious deaths of a few head of cattle” (p. 32): the draining
of the lake had caused the temperature to drop by a few degrees.
This not only destroyed the olive trees that had grown at that
altitude because of the mild climate of the lake, but also reduced
the supply of water, causing many pastures to dry up.
“Silone lived in the poorest…part of town” (p. 43): he
went to live there two years after the earthquake, having abandoned
his studies in June 1917, before moving to Rome, as later noted on
“Aline Valangin…eleven years younger than he” (p. 106): Aline was
eleven years Silone’s senior (she was born on 9 February 1889).
“Abide to the censorship laws” (p. 305): In the years in question
the fascist regime was not yet in power and censoring the newspapers
7. Unknowability !
Finally, we come to the analysis of the accusations which began in
1996, that Silone was a fascist spy who infiltrated the Communist
Party. As regards the documents that are supposed to prove Silone’s
guilt, it is evidently not a question of only proving their
authenticity but of proving that they belonged to Silone.
According to Pugliese “at least some do appear in the calligraphy of
Silone” (p. 298). Also his widow had “admitted ...that some of
the letters may indeed be his” (p. 309).
Instead, as the historian Giuseppe Tamburrano demonstrated, only one
letter can be attributed to Silone, the letter dated 13 April 1930
and presumably addressed to Commissario Bellone. The others are
almost all typewritten and either anonymous or variously signed.
As regards the “forty pages of documents” attributed to Silone on
p. 307 of the biography (“certainly appear to be in Silone’s hand”),
Giuseppe Tamburrano has had them analysed by a handwriting expert,
Dott.ssa Anna Petrecchia, who, on 19 January 2001, excluded their
ascription to Silone. During the press campaign about Silone the
spy, on 14 April 2003 “the” proof put forward by Canali was the
recognition of Silone’s handwriting by a grandnephew!
Events in Silone’s life that are accurately recalled by Pugliese in
many parts of the biography contradict the accusations that Silone
was a fascist spy. To give some examples: “Orione was under the
correct impression that the agents were ‘authorized to shoot on
sight…’” (p. 53); “Silone … wanted by the fascist police” (p. 57)
and so on. The book informs also about his vicissitudes as a
clandestine communist (p. 77 onwards); how the fascists were
looking in Italy for his address abroad (p. 87); how the verdict of
the fascist court “sounded more like an indictment of Silone than
Romolo” (p. 88); about the fascist spies who from Switzerland wrote
reports on Silone even with the plan to assassinate him; how Silone
during the war insisted on combating fascism and so on.
But in spite of all the above, “the lifelong guilt over his
relation with Bellone” is still there until the last pages of the
As regards the reasons for his spying, putting aside the
accusations against Silone on his presumed schizophrenia and
amorality, Pugliese appears to favour the thesis of Silone’s
generally ambiguous personality and impenetrability.
“Many aspects of Silone remain a mystery even to me”, Silone’s
widow had confessed to him (p. 340). Therefore, if “she, who knew
Silone best, could never fully plumb the mystery of his identity”
(p. 177), because there were “aspects of his personality that
always remained a mystery to her” (p. 293), then no one else could
unveil the mystery that was Silone.
if he was a living mystery and it was impossible to know the truth
about him, then the question of betrayal becomes completely
According to Darina Silone “there was undoubtedly something, but
what?...” as unfortunately “the real truth will never be known,
because all concerned are now dead” (p. 320). Ten pages later
Pugliese repeats: “we may never really untangle the mystery of
whether and why Silone may have spent as much as a decade (or as
little as two years) writing to Bellone”.
In other words, following sophist epistemology – Gorgias’
unknowability – it is impossible to know what course Silone’s
relationship with the fascist police took and whether it was
confined to a period of two years and to his attempts to help his
8. Silone has never been a fascist spy
Yet the facts of the case were known in Italy and made public
already in 1979. In the commemorative book published a year after
Silone’s death, entitled “Silone tra l’Abruzzo e il Mondo”, on p.
354 was printed – without unleashing the least scandal - the
original fascist document dated 16 January 1935 stating that Silone
had feigned spying in order to save his brother from a death
sentence in the fascist prison where he had been taken in 1928.
(Attached is a copy of the document)
Romolo had been arrested at about ten kilometers from
Switzerland, while he was attempting to cross the border illegally
in order to reach Silone. It was 13 April, the day after the
attempt to assassinate the king in Milan.
Silone knew very well that the charge of attempted regicide and
mass murder which hung on Romolo, though innocent, would have led
to the death penalty. Also, Silone knew that his brother would have
been subjected to repeated torture.
On 6 February, two months before Romolo’s arrest, the communist
Gastone Sozzi, a young journalist appreciated also by Gramsci, had
died under torture in the fascist prison of Perugia. Silone had
immediately gone to Paris to deal with the “Sozzi case” on behalf
of the Communist Party and launch an international campaign on the
ill treatment and torture to which the political prisoners were
subjected in the fascist prisons. On 6 April, just seven days
before Romolo’s arrest, Silone participated in Paris in an
antifascist rally to commemorate the young communist tortured to
Silone was therefore ready to go to any length to save his brother
not only because he felt responsible for having asked him to join
him in Switzerland, but above all for a most intimate and profound
It is known that Silone, when he was fourteen years old, at the time
of the Abruzzo earthquake in the freezing January of 1915, helped
dig with his bare hands amongst the rubble, extracting after five
days the body of his mother. When all hope had been lost of
finding his nine-year old brother alive, Silone saw him emerge from
the wreckage, whitened by mortar, with a broken shoulder, and his
mouth full of dust from screaming for help. Alive. For Silone, it
was like seeing his birth. His brother was the only family member
to survive and the only person he loved that remained to him.
Thirteen years later Romolo, buried in the fascist prison, was to
be considered dead as when he was still beneath the rubble of the
Silone did the only thing he could do, the thing he had observed in
his work in charge of the party’s clandestine tasks: barter the
life of his brother with some harmless information that could trick
When Silone decided to play-act as an informer, he did not
keep the Communist Party in the dark (and they may well have been in
full agreement). The party was not opposed to trying to help
political prisoners, as long as this would not damage the party
itself. In fact, the police file on Silone, which has always
been preserved in its entirety, has always contained the void
information and useless press cuttings that Silone had tried to pass
off to the fascists as important and confidential.
However Silone was unable to carry on such an obvious fiction for
After sending irrelevant news, when required by the fascists to
play it for real, Silone put an end to his pretence at spying. It
can therefore be concluded that Silone has never been a fascist spy.
Romolo who, at the time of his imprisonment, was a strong and
handsome young man, twenty-four years old, athletic, sports lover –
as documented in the schools reports and as proven by the number of
races he won not only in Abruzzo, in particular in Sulmona, but
also during the military service - will die in prison as a result
of the torture, in particular the repeated blows with sandbags to
his chest and body that left no visible traces but shattered his
9. “The Shadow Line”
In the closing chapters of the biography Pugliese weighs the great
value of Silone’s work against “the shadow line” of his relationship
with the police: “Silone’s lifelong guilt over his relationship
with Bellone was responsible for some of the most poignant and
powerful fiction of the twentieth century. ” (p. 330, already
The so-called Machiavellian side of Silone – seen abroad as
typically Italian behaviour – reflects the words that Manzoni had
don Ferrante say about Machiavelli: “famous Florentine secretary,
indeed a scoundrel, but a deep one”.
Finally, Pugliese places Silone’s alleged tortuous processes in
context: “…although the documents may discredit Silone as
unblemished hero of the left, they add shadow and depth to a figure
who had been considered a secular saint, much to his displeasure.
In his story, we might come to a better understanding not only of
the man but also of the complicated moral choices demanded by his
times” (p. 339).
To summarise Pugliese’s assessment of Silone one could say, in
legal language, that the biography leans towards finding in favour
of the moral offences with which Silone was charged but also
towards allowing all the extenuating circumstances deriving from the
literary and political value of his work. In other words, Silone
should not be fully acquitted on the grounds that he did not commit
the crime of spying but pardoned beforehand by reason of his
“work”. “Pardoned” to be understood in the sense of Celestine V, as
a remission of his sins.
10. Ignazio Silone’s song
At this point, it is worth correcting the misunderstanding about
the word “secret” as attributed to Silone by Pugliese in the
Pugliese writes that “late in life, Silone intriguingly revealed
in an interview that ‘there is a secret in my life; it is written
between the lines of my novels’” (p. 330).
Instead Silone used the word “secret” in a metaphorical sense, and
not as something which needs to be hidden. In fact in the
television interview in “L’Approdo”, May 1966, by Franco Simongini
(reproduced on p. 192 in “Silone tra l’Abruzzo e il Mondo”, 1979),
talking about the sadness of someone who leaves for a faraway
destination but in the end finds himself back where he began
(referring to the novel “Una manciata di more”), Silone said: “One
who returns from a long journey is never the same person as before
and even the place he left is not the same place”, and that “it
is very difficult to explain some things to people who have always
stayed in their birthplace”. He went on to tell the story of a
Spanish sailor who used to sing a beautiful song when he was on the
high seas. One day, at the end of a meal, his family begged him to
sing it for them but he replied “It is impossible; I sing my song
only to those who come with me on the high seas”. Concluding,
Silone said: “I want to reveal a secret, [my song] is
between the lines of my books”. In other words, the story of his
life and his thoughts was interspersed in his books and could only
be fully understood not by the “ignavi” but by anyone who set off on
the struggle for democracy.
To gain an insight into the profound meaning of Silone’s
life and works, one only needs to listen carefully to the song –
his song – which is the leitmotiv of all his writings, the same
leitmotiv that accompanied his entire life.
Rome, 12 October 2009