Pursuit of Italy, The

Gilmour's Pursuit of Italy is a fine summary of the historical regionalism and effects of that regionalism on Modern Italy. I could not put it down, finding it engaging and amusing, while still bringing up many one-off (maybe two-off) bits of analysis and perceptions of Italy that make this such a valuable piece. Gilmour tends to criticize and minimize the evaluation of the Catholic Church in Italy, which is a bit troubling. For example, on the subject of Vivaldi "Its most talented musician was the violinist and composer Antonio Vivaldi whose job at a local orphanage for girls, the Conservatorio della pieta, obliged him to provide his employers with two concertos a month" Good to know...but what exactly was Antonio Vivaldi's job? Well..he was a Roman Catholic Priest, known as the "Red Priest" (due to his red hair)..that's Father Vivaldi at the orphanage. We would never know this from Gilmour, as he seems to want to write out the charitable and glorious effects of Catholicism on Italian culture, but come on...how do you rewrite the Catholic out of Vivaldi? I still give this book 5 stars, as it is terrific history and cultural commentary, but found myself questioning where opinion starts and history starts. Doesn't spoil the book, in fact, makes it more interesting, as the author's observations are definitely slanted from an interesting viewpoint.

Many of us have been to Italy or know Italians or have married an Italian or have driven an Italian car or eaten wonderful Italian food or have marveled at Italian art or have listened with wonder to Italian music or have admired Italian architecture or have read the great Italian poets or have experienced its sense of "la dolce vita". In fact, few, if any, people have had such an indelible impression on our daily lives as the Italians. Yet Italy itself, the land of the Italian people, has had a difficult history. Difficult, in fact, is not a remotely appropriate adjective to describe a history full of feckless leaders, unremitting intrigues and conspiracies, massive corruption and military ineptitude. David Gilmour, in this authoritative overview of Italian history, describes the central problem with Italy. "Geography and the vicissitudes of history made certain countries, including France and Britain, more important than the sum of their parts...In Italy the opposite was true. The parts are so stupendous that a single region...would rival every other country in the world in the quality of its art and the civilization of its past." Italy, Gilmour concludes, has produced an unending kaleidoscope of great human achievement but continues to be unable to create a strong, effective national government that can produce a great society. In fact, in the two great periods of Italian history - the Renaissance and the Middle Ages - Italy was in fact not a nation but a collection of vastly different regional kingdoms, in many cases kingdoms in which Italian was not a well-understood language. Italy has had occasional national leaders, some of whom were not in fact Italian, but it has also had its full share of destructive, power-mad leaders, including Mussolini and, more recently Berlusconi. Only with Julius Caesar, now two thousand years in the past, has Italy produced a leader on the scale of Bismark, Peter the Great, deGaulle, or Churchill. Gilmour searches for reasons to explain why it is that Italy has failed to become the great nation-state that its enormous talents deserve. He does this with skill, copious knowledge, terrific insight and a continual sense of ironic humor. He knows Italy well. He explains Italy's plight with great clarity and a firm grasp on the consequences of its citizens to place their region first and the nation second. This is, at times, a sad story. Just as the Civil War in the United States ultimately made a strong nation out of two strong regions, Italy was in the midst of a failed effort to make a nation out of regions, some not larger than cities, such as Venice, Naples and Florence. These divisions and regional jealousies exist today. Sicily is still only remotely governed by national authorities. The difference between the North of Italy, industrious, developed and European, and the South of Italy, economically weak and close to ungovernable, remains stark. You will find in this book a wonderful series of historical sketches, outlining the high and low points of Italian history. One reads the book, however, with a mounting sense of disappointment that Italy could not have become more than it is. It is a complex story and Gilmour tells this tangled tale very well. You will not, however, find the key to the way out. Italy is the land of Italians and it seems that these enormously talented people have a way of living that is totally unique and admirable in so many ways. Their life has worked for them for two thousand years and will probably carry on roughly the same, with all the achievements and all the disappointments, for quite a bit longer.

great book for people who like visiting Italy

I have studied and read a great deal of European and American history, but never Italian history, so as an introduction, I ordered two books; Gilmour's "The Pursuit of Italy" and The Oxford Illustrated History. Oxford's history is serviceable but ponderous and I frequently became lost in the detail. Gilmour's was scintillating, incisive, erudite and a sheer joy to read. I'll leave to scholars to debate his thesis that the unification of italy has ultimately not been successful and am sure experts will disagree with some of his interpretations and judgments. But for the general reader - general yet educated reader - Gilmour's volume is a valuable introduction to this land and culture. It is an exemplary volume.

This is an odd book because, deep down, it is a good book and an enjoyable read. One that, as someone with a basic understanding of Italian history, but not one that is too extensive, I was happy to read and felt like I learned quite a bit from. However, it has some issues and gets weird at times. One thing about the book is that it frequently talks about how many people or administrations are often mischaracterized by history books. This is a good thing, as an honest and realistic understanding of people and history is only good. But the weirdness starts to pop up during these times when the author will let slip (or blatantly state) what seems like personal attacks and sniping or name-calling at people. It is jarring to see what is a pretty even-handed take on things turn into an obviously subjective opinion stated as an obvious fact and then turned into what can almost be called ad hominem jabs. I’m not even talking about things directed toward Berlusconi, but toward figures of history that are in no way personal adversaries of the author, yet feel like that. It, at times, undermines his main points (and unnecessarily so, since he makes the points without them). The other weirdness happens when, seemingly out of nowhere, the author starts slipping into meandering writing that just keeps going without adding a huge amount of insight or information. You see this often near the ends of chapters or when a concluding discussion seems relevant, and the worst offender is the very end of the book. I mean it just keeps going on in a rambling, almost stream-of-consciousness style that feels like a failure of the editor to say “uhhh….this isn’t making the book better.” It seems as if, when the actual content of history isn’t at the forefront, the quality of the writing gets noticeably worse. An area where the content is too much is whenever opera comes up. It is clear that the author is a big fan of opera, because no matter how relevant (and he sure tries to show that it is), even if it is only tangential to the rest of the chapter, the author makes sure to talk extensively about it. Very extensively. It stands out and is odd. Finally, I do not think he actually successfully made the argument that about Italy being almost impossibly divided and the Risorgimento may have been bad. He states many things, but I was unconvinced because it isn’t clear that the alternatives would have been any better or different. Yes, the points are made that “look, they are different from each other”, “they speak different dialects, or at least used to”, “there is a geographical divide”, “people from different regions aren’t like people from other regions”. But these are not special to Italy whatsoever, and I many ways characterized the U.S. Overall, I think this is a good book that is constrained by its weirdness. There is a good, if not great, book in there that a good editor could have pulled out.

Gilmour knows and loves his subject well. His graceful writing style, eye for the telling detail/anecdote, and fair but personal point-of-view makes this magisterial history a pleasure to read.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the formal proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy. I have long had a fascination with Italy, which was only whetted by my two too-short trips there. Art, architecture, history, food, wine, warmly hospitable people, and (often) glorious weather and landscapes. But at the same time Italy is such a dysfunctional country - crime, corruption, bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, Berlusconi, and a burgeoning debt crisis. (I realize, of course, that the same problems - minus "Berlusconi" - loom large in the United States.) In THE PURSUIT OF ITALY, David Gilmour does a good job of explaining why in its 150 years Italy, the nation, has had such a star-crossed existence and why it still has an uncertain future. In Gilmour's view, geography and the vicissitudes of history over millennia have worked against a unified Italian nation. For centuries, the peoples of the peninsula existed -- even thrived, at least in comparison to many others in Europe -- in various city-states (such as Venice, Genoa, Savoy, Florence, Siena, and Naples). Even today, "the city-states remain embedded in Italy's psyche, the crucial component of its people's identity and of their social and cultural inheritance." When the tide of 19th-Century nationalism swept over Italy, there were no inherent ties or associations that predisposed those city-states to unite in a peninsular nation, and the founding fathers - Cavour, Garibaldi, Mazzini, and Victor Emanuel - who brought about that nation-state did so without the support or approval of the majority of the citizenry. Italy as a nation was flawed in conception, and the nation-building since has been badly flawed in execution. In arguing for his thesis - which I find quite plausible - Gilmour supplies the reader with a one-volume history of Italy (or, perhaps more accurately, history of its many and varied constituent parts). That history is a little tedious at times and the book occasionally takes on the feel of a textbook -- albeit, better written than most textbooks. But on the whole I found THE PURSUIT OF ITALY both engaging and educational. I learned more about Italy than I have from any other single source in my reading career. The book certainly should be considered by anyone looking for a one-volume historical overview of Italy before travelling there.

No promise of being comprehensive, the author promises and delivers a quick and at times scathing history of Italy. Great book, thoroughly enjoyed it, and I learned a lot. One that will stick in my mind is how so many Italian fascists easily converted to communism after the second world war. I see a lot of the political mistakes Italy made over and over being repeated by the Democratic party here in the US, and its disturbing. However, Italy pulled itself out of is economic nightmare eventually, and one day the socialists here and their choking economic policies will hopefully go the way of the dinosaur. Great book, something to learn from in many ways.

This volume is extremely well written - detailed, yet easy to understand without becoming tedious. The best I have ever seen on this topic. Highly recommended.

The 150th anniversary of Italian unification is a good time to publish this book. Gilmour's thesis is that Italy lacks a coherent national identity, that Italian nationalism has caused enormous damage to people in Italy, and Italy's individual regions would be more successful as autonomous units within a larger European union. He produces elegantly devastating criticism of many of the leading Italian national figures since the Risorgimento, including both the Victor Emmanuels (II and III), military leaders such as Cadorna and Badoglio, Mussolini (naturally), post-war politicians such as Craxi and (equally naturally) Berlusconi. A thoroughly enjoyable, and informative, read. I'd have liked Gilmour to develop a couple of relevant topics in greater depth. First, the Italian emigrant diaspora: people of Italian ancestry in the UK and the US seem to have a sense of an Italian national identity which is lacking in their cousins still living in Naples, Milan or Palermo. Second, the reduction in dialect use and the accompanying rise in the use of standard Italian: this is surely the consequence of national media, especially broadcasting. In 1861, Sicilians could not communicate with Venetians, nor Neapolitans with Milanese. Now they share a common language. Surely the ability to communicate with one's fellow-citizens in distant provinces has created, to some extent, a sense of national identity? Overall, a good read for anyone interested in the origins of modern Italy and the very idea of "Italy".

Divertida, capaz de mostrarnos lo escurridizo del concepto mismo de Italia Fácil de leer, el autor tiene cuidado de mostrar los matices de una historia de una realidad política compleja

La mia Bibbia (my bible). About the old Italian history (before 1850 ac) it corresponds to “official” history. But after not. What the Italian books never said about the last 170 years of Italian history... This book had never been translated and published in Italy...

The history of Italy (especially the forging of a national entity) explains so much about how Italy is today. Italy has given the world so much in creative and culinary spheres, but they have not really gained status as a true world power. The trials and tribulations of their unification explain much. The book was heavy going in places - lots of detail to take in. However, I did find it informative.