ABSTRACT: He argues sarcastically against Eugenio Scalfari (1), the man "who considers himself capable of demonstrating what he thinks about everyone and everything". "Poor" Casanova said he had driven Voltaire "into a corner", which was not true. But Voltaire would not have been able to take Scalfari lightly who is so much more powerful than Casanova. Now Scalfari attacks the author by affirming that in today's situation of retreat and backwash "it was no small matter when Sciascia some months ago attacked the structures that were trying to keep public tension against the Mafia high." In Sciascia, Scalfari continues, "personal vanity often wins out over civic responsibility". It is not true, Sciascia replies, that in Italy a writer can set off "a trend of opinion". He denies that he "had it in for those judges and those politicians"; he was only worried by the behaviour of the High Council of Magistrates, a behaviour that penalised Judge Falcone in order to favour Judge Borsellino. What the author really wa

nts is that the state should show "decision, firmness, intelligence, harmony..."

(LA STAMPA, August 6, 1988)

La trahison des clercs. (The treason of the clergy, ed.) But did Eugenio Scalfari really intend to speak of Julien Benda's book in his article in »La Repubblica of August 2? Or with this title had he written or was he girding himself to write a contraposition, a revision or a parody? Certainly Scalfari has many strings to his bow. He is one of those versatile Italian geniuses whose prototype were known in Europe in the 18th Century. He considers himself capable of demonstrating what he thinks about everyone and everything, and he has the practical means, the concrete power to do so. Beware of making him hate you! He is quite another kettle of fish from poor Casanova who relates in his memoirs of having driven Voltaire into a corner, but the only confirmation of that visit, that lesson, in Voltaire is the annotation funny kind of Italian had dropped by Ferney's. Scalfari is less amusing than Casanova, but much more powerful. His dropping by, his lessons, his reproofs, not even Voltaire would have taken

lightly. So just imagine us! We are afflicted, the temptation to say we repent - in this sea of repentance which is called Italy - is rather strong. But an impudent demon advises us to resist this temptation, to continue to merit Scalfari's disdain. There will come a time when we are no longer and Scalfari will be less powerful. Who knows if then someone will not set to adding up the accounts with a certain candour?

Partly for fun and partly to keep from dying, said Petrolini. (2) But let us leave aside the fun and try to keep from dying under Scalfari's blows. And here then is the passage in Scalfari's article under discussion (I have the correct habit of quoting arguments textually - if that's what they are - directed against me): "And since the moment has come to say everything as frankly as possible, I will add that in this entire situation of retreat and backwash, it was no small matter when Leonardo Sciascia some months ago attacked the structures that were trying to keep public tension against the Mafia high. In the columns of the Corriere della Sera Sciascia accused of career-chasing those politicians and judges who according to him invented the job of being scarecrows to the Mafia only in order to advance themselves in rank and prestige. A certain sector of public opinion connected to certain interests was only waiting for this in order to counterattack, and it is no coincidence if Sciascia's position was

amplified and re-launched in all directions on the authority of its author - a more striking example of a "trahison des clercs" could hardly be found. But in any case there is nothing new in this kind of sortie on Sciascia's part, in whom personal vanity often wins out over civic responsibility."

In this passage there is an affirmation that would be comforting except that it is entirely unfounded: it is the idea that in Italy a writer has the authority to set off a broad trend in public opinion that has great consequences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My position won a hearing and some consensus (just as it aroused rash reactions), in Palermo before the eyes of all those who wanted to see it, simply because it was true. It was inevitable that a truth like this should be exploited by, as Scalfari says, "a certain sector of public opinion connected to certain interests": this is a risk one always runs when one says certain truths. But the speeches of the CGIL, CISL, and UIL (3) union leaders - who said unheeded the very same things I had tried to say - and articles in the Manifesto and other papers, served very well to minimise the risks. If »La Repubblica , instead of launching furious attacks against me, had serenely evaluated my declarations, perhaps today we would be in a better po

sition. Because it is not true that I had it in for those magistrates and politicians, and not in the least on the personal level (and Dr. Borsellino himself recognised that fact); what worried me was the uncritical climate that had formed around them making them untouchable; and above all I was worried by the behaviour of the High Council of Magistrates precisely in the case of Dr. Borsellino. The Council had freed itself from the norms in effect without establishing new ones. If it had established them at once, the case of Dr. Falcone, with everything it represents today, would never have happened. By adopting one criterion for promoting Borsellino, and then returning to the old rule to by-pass Falcone, it had sooner or later to account for its sins. In short it was not I with my article in the Corriere who created today's situation. It was already there and it had to explode. I did nothing but bring it to attention, and quickly. And it is true that I do not like tensions which generally are destined to sl

acken: what I want from the state is for it to be decisive, firm, intelligent and to create harmony between the various organs of the public administration entrusted with the task of fighting the Mafia. I want that which has never been and evidently does not exist now. And acting in this manner the goal is ever further away. This as always, once again makes me look like a pessimist. And this it seems is not permitted even when one is faced with the worst. Let us be merry, let us be merry. As for what Scalfari calls a "sortie", I understand very well if it never enters his head that one can write for nothing but the love of truth. It is true that my "sorties" have been many which have gone out to meet up with polemics, resentment, reproof and even calumny and defamation. Calumnies in the style of Don Basilio (4) (a pertinent allusion if you think about it). But what can I do about it? As Shaw said of the blacks, that first one forces them to shine shoes and then one says that they only know how to shine shoes

, first they attack me and then reprimand me for having been attacked. I have had to deal for thirty years with those who first did not want to believe in the existence of the Mafia and now see nothing but the Mafia everywhere. From time to time I have been accused of defaming Sicily or of defending it too much. Physicists have accused me of insulting science, the Communists of having joked about Stalin, the clergy of being Godless, and so on. I am not infallible, but I think I have spoken some undeniable truths. I am sixty seven years old and have a lot to reprimand myself for; but not for anything that has to do with bad faith, vanity or special interests. I do not, I realise have the gift of acting opportunely and of prudence. But one is the way one is made.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

TRANLSATOR'S NOTES

1) Scalfari, Eugenio - (Civitavecchia 1924) - Journalist, managing editor of the weekly »L'Espresso from 1966 to 1968. Founder and managing editor of the Rome daily »La Repubblica since 1976.

2) Petrolini, Ettore - (Rome 1886 -1936) A popular comic actor and author of comedies.

3) CISL, UIL, CGIL - The three big Italian labour unions.

4) Don Basilio - An allusion to the character in Rossini's opera The Barber of Seville who sings an aria "La Calunnia".