Two major querelles set Italian historiography astir during the years following the Second World War. The first goes back to 1959 and the publication of Rosario Romeo's Risorgimento e capitalismo;1 the second, to that of the third volume of Renzo De Felice's monumental biography of Mussolini.2 The first of these works kindled a debate on economic policy in Italy after the founding of the kingdom that resulted in two opposing theses regarding the nature of the Risorgimento . In Romeo' s view, the governing class, liberal in its politics, made decisions in the sphere of economics that were dictated by their own ideals and by conditions in the country. According to historians in the Marxist and Gramscian traditions, the governing class betrayed the "popular'' moving forces behind the Risorgimento and imposed decisions on the country that reflected their own class interests. The second work prompted an even more acrimonious discussion on the nature of Fascism in Italy and on the extent of the popular support it enjoyed during the twentyone years of the Fascist regime. De Felice maintained that a distinction must be made between the Fascist movement, in which popular and revolutionary ferments were present, and the Fascist regime, dominated, de facto, by Mussolini's authoritarian line of action and by his compromises with the major sources of power in Italian society-the monarchy, the church, the armed forces, the state bureaucracy, and industrial and financial capitalism. Historians of Marxist inspiration maintain, to the contrary, that Fascism was from the outset a clearly reactionary movement and that the popular touches in Mussolini's program were merely cosmetic and a clever disguise to help him win over and organize the masses in Italy. At first glance, there seems to be no connection between these two great historiographic battles. In reality, however, each had a civil significance that transcended the narrow boundaries of academic interests, and both reached-