6 CAESAR OR CESARE? American and Italian images of Lombroso Patrizia Guarnieri UNIVERSITY OF FIRENZE As a seasickness Reading Lombroso’s works is a demanding undertaking, because his vast produc~ tion as scientist and columnist appears heterogeneous, fantic, and intentionally without conceptual order. Iti a production that is buile on progressive accumu lation of material, apparently without an orderly selection of what Lombroso had written oF noted before, and without making distinction bevween his own thoughts and those he had gotien from other authors. One can for instance reflect on how much the publication L'uomo definquente (Criminal Man) grew from the 255 pages ofits 1st edition to the four large volumes of the Sth edition. “Reading it was a psychic experience equivalent to feeling seasick” whispered a French colleague of Lombroso in 1990, obviously with the intention of criticizing him (Mesnil 1900, 628). Others thought the same way. Almost one century lates, even the Italian Scholars who wished to present him in a non-judgmental manner, had to admit the existence of inconsistencies in Lombroso’s writings and hence the difficulty to structure his publications in terms of themes addressed, which they attempted anyway to do in a collection of his works published in 1995 (Lombroso 1995) ‘Understanding Lombroso in translations co foreign languages may be even harder. How and what was exactly translated when in 1911 Criminal Man appeared for the first time in English? Rather briefly summarized, or bated on a French translation of only one of the four volumes of the Sth edition of 1896-97. A sim- ilar difficulty was faced by Mary Gibson and Nicole Rafter, respectively authors cof Bom to Crime (2002) and Creating Bont Criminals (1997), who issued a eansla- tion based on selected parts of Lombroso’ Italian editions (Lombroso 2006). Much more than for other authors, the rencitions of Lombroso’s works in the various translations have been heavily affected by the cultural context, expectations, and needs which they have addressed ~ at Lombroso’s time as well as today. This must114 Patrizia Guarnieri be taken into consideration in order to understand the Lombroso phenomenon, including his undeniable fame, which many have pondered on since Mesnil (1900). ‘A number of questions arise when one looks at how Lombroso’s work was received: what has his work meant forthe sciensfie community and for the public during the course of time? Even in the enormous literature that refers to him, cone can observe the same inconsistent accumulation that characterizes his own production. Opposite opinions seem to co-exist: when critics seem to liquidate bis work as “preudoscience,” che appreciation arises for the precursor of modeen as ‘well as earlier scientific theories. ‘The recent 10f)-year anniversary of Lombroso’s death has heen an aceasion of debate among scholars as well as among che public a least in Italy, and an oppor tunity for some deliberation. Giorgio Iszl, a scholar in science, fascism, and Jewish history, has identified in the debate a lack of critical originality I ranged from the “condemnation of Lombroso 2s champion of a brutal and extreme anthropology. ‘or from his casifiation as fther of modern racism, to the opposite end where he rises as the great scientist who anticipated the modern naturalistic view of man” srael 2010, 145). In the latter regard, Peter Becker his shown how, in recent years, apprecia- tive references to the “inventor” of criminology have grown into a debate about neuroscience, extending to magazines for the general public dealing with neuro- biological ropies (Becker 2010). Images of Lombroso as 2 precursor are epentedly drawn, both for theories and ideologies that are well appreciated, such as the new- roscientific ones, as well as for those thatare denigrated, like the biological theories of crime, oF the inequalities of race or gender. It seems to me that these images overlap with each other and build on the same mistake or methodological ingen- ity ~ in the context of history of science ~ regardless of the different opinions on theories for which Lombroso was seen asa precursor. ‘The enthusiasm for Lombroso as a leader in neuroscience has not eliminated the execration of Lombroso asthe father of scientific racism. This accusation ~ chat Israel considers “more than exaggerated ... simply ridiculous” (Israel 2010, 145) {ntact noe supported inthe current scenic debate. Yet sal ingers, whenever new studies are undertaken. So when, in 2003, a new biography about Lombroso was relenced (Frigesst 200), there were prese critiques of the very fact of having paid attention to the founder of criminal anthropology, a figure who was glorified by the totalitarian fascist regime (a statement which is historically unfounded and in fact unsustainable) In 2009, during the conference that was organized to celebrate Lombroso’ 100-vear anniversary. in the Italian congress someone again alluded to his alleged responsibility in anti-semicism, provoking indignation from a direct descendant of Lombroso, who was present and whose family had suffered from anti-semitic persecution and had been forced to emigrate of to hide, after the fascist laws of 1938.? As another example, a street protest organized by a so-called “civil insurgence movement” agains the reopening of the Museum of Lombroso in ‘Turin. In Calabria, in the village where the “brigante” Giuseppe Villella was born, ‘on whose head the anthropologist had found the stigmata of the “born criminal,‘American and talian images of Lombroso 115 there has been claims for his rehabilitation as a victim of pseudo-scientific racism (Guarnieri 2010, 238) Even today, current issues are discussed with approaches that reinforce a negative image of Lombroso, One finds this in ehe press 35 well a in parliamentary debates and not only in Italy. At the French Asziblée National, in January 2008, during a discussion on a draft law on security arrest, the proposing Minister had been accused of being a follower of Lombroso and “his positivist philosophy, which had produced the worst of Nazi Germany” (Renneville 2009, 211). These ate ridiculous opinions as Giorgio Israel commented; or historical contradictions, as observed by Mare Rennevile, Should Lombroso be lefe in peace, rather than improperly pulling him into all sort of debates on current issues? Although those judgments are not shared by today’ historians, their unwieldy presence cannot be disregard, a presence which thas been ltting and which the pashistory has contributed to buildin a more or less direc fishion. As known, che image of Lombroso as inspite of the Final Solution, racist, pseudo-scienific in relation to criminals as well as to women, has emerged in the late 1970 and onwards. This judgment is expressed in several books on the history of racism published in the United States ~ from Toward the final solution by George Mosse (1978) to The Mismcesire of Man by Stephen J. Gould (1981) — ‘which were writen and read ina “heated” political and cultural climate, and which were translated, well received, and much used in the condemnation of Lombroso, By virtue of these publications, the Lombroso debate restated in Italy, in a sudden and negative fashion, after a long silence that still neds to be explained. “The way an author is received can reveal much about the needs and concerns of the community thae exals, blames, censures, or forgets him. The Lombroso centenary celebration seems t0 me to have resulted in a better knowledge of how wide the circulation of his ideas was, athough variously interpreted, in different European, American, or Asia countries, Galileo and Leonardo apart, Lombroso is the only Italian scientist who has enjoyed much international fame, a fame that was mainly positive outside Italy. Hence, it is surprising that a negative image has prevailed and intact isthe only one remaining in the general public. ‘At this point, [ would like to focus on the development of the reception and view on Lombrovo ia te diferent cavntris, i+ United Stares and lay consid cring the repercussions ofthese on one and the other side of the ocean. The choice (of this comparison allows one eo investigate significant questions such a: what hap- pens when scientific ideas circulate on a word basi? When they migrate elsewhere and return transformed? And how these transformed ideas are received back in a context that in the meantime has changed? What about if they don’t come back at all? In natural sciences the migration to different national contexts occurs on the basis of a commonly shared language; but for human sciences things are more ‘complex because of various types of interactions, contamination, misunderstand ings which affect the way theories are tansformed and became socially acceptable. Lonibroso addrewed serious questions that very much reflected the interest of the society at that time, and for which politicians and ordinary people wanted to have116 Patrizia Cuaries ‘urgent answers. Ie was also believed and hoped that science could provide the solu- tions that were needed, But how and under what conditions these solutions could actually be used was a matter of debate, the content of which varied depending on the context in which the debate itself occurred. Fascination and Americanization Lombroso himself expressed his view On the dissemination of criminal anthropology (Lombroso 1890). His presentation was supported by the circle of his associates and appeats ieliable, certainly interesting, While Europe “was fighting even for its rname” (and the strongest opponents were among his fellow psychiatrists), America ‘welcomed the criminal anthropology with ovation. Not only in the countries of South America, Argentina in particular, as he wrote for a book first published in Buenos Aires in 1888 and then in Turin (Lombroso 1890, xxxiv-scxxv), but also in the United States, As he recognized in 1909, America gave to an increasing extent ““a warm and sympathetic reception to the ideas of the Modern School which they speedily put into practice” (Lombroso 191 1b, xx). Lombroso was comparing the generosity of the new world to the ungratefulness of the old one, and the American ability of putting ideas into practice with the European defect of wasting time in sterile debates, mostly animated by academic or professional rivalry. Lombroso comphined 2 lot about this. He really suffered fiom the isolation and the attacks thac came from across the Alps, the explicit and harsh accusations from the French “cousins” as well s the misunderstandings of the Germans. He was especially suffering for the strong criticism raised from the area of Italian positivism, a complicated, heterogeneous cultural and scientific :movement, as the series of specialist research since the 1980s on the history of Italian scientific culture on the nineteenth anc cwentieth centuries has demonstrated.? In the absence of an authoritative leadership as was the ease for other national postivisms in Europe, the Italian culture cultivated more souk Certainly, Italian positivism did not have a single direction; therefore, placing Lombroso within a ffamework defined by rigid associations among organicism, determinism, positivism, etc. does not help understanding of either his polyhedral figure or the changing context around him. Since 1903, the inexorable criticisms of Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile on La Critica were regularly directed againse all the posiivsts~ historians, phiosophers, anthropologist, psychologists, pedagogues; but even before the dominant neo-ideaism prochimed “the end of posi” (Gentile 1917, ed 1969, 308-316), Lombroto was atacked from within, not from the adverse part as he stressed even to his American audience. A col- league, Enrico Morseli, who was almost cwenty years younger and who had been appointed instead of Lombroso the professorship and the position of asylum direc tor in Turin, coined him — without respect — “the stelyard psychiatrist” (Morselli 1906; Guarnieri 2002). The founder of che Italian society of anthropology, the famous evolutionist Paolo Mantegazza, with whom good relations were ruined due to the disagreement over aavism, thought Lombroso as obsessed with numbers,‘American and Wallan images of Lombroso 117 bur “unable to handle the scale and the cule” (Mantegazza 1888, 71). Contempo- rary scientists complained about the absence of independent checking, the small number of eases observed, the crudeness of its statistics, and che simplicity ofits eductions; the criminologiss and criminal lawyers noted that his approach did not sufficiently acknowledge the social and the psychological factors of crime, The list of critical quotes might be made long, confirming what many researchers have documented: the Italian cultural context cannot be seen as having been favorable to Lombroso. This was cercainly the cae in dhe scientific arena, ay well 2s im the field of practices and their social acceptability (Giacaneli 1995) Ths the cout roam, modern science was nat prevailing agains the philosophy of five will shared by magistrates; nor wasit able to convince public opinion which generally wanted severe punishments for murder crimes. That a murderer should not be sentenced because experts idensfied on his face and body the stigmata of his pre-determined attitude to crime was not acceptable, not even when the physical aspect was most suitable to the application of the Lombrosian categori which in any ease were not able to explain the specificity of each case: such as, in the internationally quoted case of the child murderer Carlo Grandi, who was malformed, dvwarfish and with ewenty-one fingers. and whose autobiographical ‘manuscript Lombroso fiamed in his museum, Tried in Florence in 1876, he was found guiley and sentenced, and after ewenty years released and put in an asylom, but the process was a mess, and appeared ike an offense inficted on modern science (Guarnieri 1993) Lombroso offen felt that he was misunderstood. He showed self-criticism for some errors he made and is well known that in farther reviews of Criminal Man, he gave space to the social factors, But some of the criticisms were difficult to swallow for Lombroso, especially the accusation of having neglected the psychology: he was grateful co America and co those who do not acknowledge this criticism and thought he was ao a psychologist. Fer the compilation that was ised in his honor ~ The Wort of Cesare Lombraso in Science and its Applications ~ he would have preferred the ttle Synopsis of my Findings and Mistakes in Serology, Crintnal Amropotegy, Forensic Medicine and Psyctary (Lomibroso 1908, xv). 11s remarkable that even in 1906, during the celebrations made in his Turin, at over 70 years of age and ar the end of hie career, Lambmen was not spared from heavy crticiums, which made him expressing pessimism about the future of criminal anthropology in Italy after him: “a legacy without heits” as its called (Martucci 2009, 291), ‘Ac the same time, Americans were enthusiastic about him and his science. Lombroso said it himself he was glad about it and yet mildly perplexed. He fele their “almost fanatical adherence” to his ideas, even before his major work had appeared in English (Lombroso 191 ta, x). According to recent studies, his reputa- tion in USA peaked in the lst decade ofthe nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Although. some degree of criticism was not lacking: “His work is by no means perfect: he is pt to jump at conclisions 00 rapidly, to accept date too lightly [.. J. Stil, when alls said and done, his work is undoubtedly epoch-making,” con- cluded Helen Zimmern, a writer of German Jewish origin who did a lot to make198 Patria Guarnieri Lombroso known to British and American readers* (Zimmern 1898, 348). Those who believed in the necessity of scientific criminology scrutinized him: an Ttal- ian had inspited a new science in the USA (Rafter 2009, 281). At the time, he was respected as a scientist (more than among his Itan countrymen), and as a columnist. Between 1891 and 1912, maay English-language magazines, expecially American ones, published about forty of his articles (Horton and Rich 2004). In conclusion: in the US, not just specialss, but “large audiences [were] hungry to read what he had « say on almost any subject” (Rafter 2009, 283) This is somewhat surprising, especially when keeping in mind the negative image of Lombroso that later emerged in the United States. and then bounced ‘with resonance in Italy. As Mary Gibson (2010, 354) has recently pointed out, that negative image emerged, in the popular and militant Gould publication of 41981, written in che first year of the Ronald Reagan presidency, which was tans- lated inco Italian in 1985 (by a publisher close to the Italian communist party), and then reprinted again and again. How can one explain that sort of fascination for Lombroso, while he was alive, followed by so much condemnation? ‘The Americans at that time, before “satistics was taught in schools (...J. were unlikely co notice [his] methodological faws that jump out today” (Rafter 2009, 1). Nicole Rafter who together with Gibson has provided English readers with a mean- ingful portrait of Lombroso as an intellectual and replaced a cartoon image of him, seems to explain his popularity in America with the scientific ignorance prevail- ing at that time. This, however, is not a convincing explanation. As mentioned above, Lombroso was immediately scolded for methodological errors by many of his contemporaries in Europe; an also they bad not learned statistics at school. Any scientist can be criticized on the basis of subsequent knowledge but this constitutes a methodological error ~ the so-called “presentism” — in che history of science but not only there, which for the case of Lombroso’s work has been recurrent, In any case the scientific merits ofa theory judged retrospectively does not explain is success, or lack of i, at the time when it was created Another, and more provocative, hypothesis may be that perhaps Americans liked Luubiesu simply Lecause dey Indl noe read his buvks, Tibi wut euitely WUE, but not completely wrong either. While Lomibroso was live, only one of his books appeared in an abridged American edition: The Female Qfeader. winich was released in 1895 just two years ater the original was issued, Written together with his fature son-in-law, the journalist and writer Guglielmo Ferrero, the book was considered “one of Lombroso’s less important books” (Parmelee 1911, xi) within the circle of the American criminologists who admired him and wanted his work to become known. ‘Whereas in 1909 Cesar Lombroso was universally known, as the Northwestern University criminologist John Wigmore kindly wrote, the “English speaking world is acquainted with his theories lrgely through hearsay” (Parmele 1911, xii-xii). His fame in the USA was more due to “fequent appearances in pop- ular American periodicals” (Simon 2005-06, 2164) than through knowledge of his scientific work. This knowledge came late, was not thorough, and was not‘Aevesican and Italian images of Lombroso 119 ‘without misunderstandings, stating from the quality of the tanslation of the posthumous edition of 1911 for “The Modern Criminal Seience Series” which left all non-English authors more or less dissatisfied (Pett 2007, #51). This did nor prevent, however, the American reception of Lombroso to be very favorable, supportive and, 1 might add, fall of unpredictable developments ~ not at all similar to the developments for waich he was condemned nearly a century later. Even in the history of ideas, fascination implies a projection of wishes on the ‘object that fascinates us. What counts is not so much knowing it well especially at ‘the beginning ics the opposite that helps ~ but having us believe inthe realization ‘ofa project. In the late 1800s and eaely 1900s, educated Americans knew that the science wos European, and that the bes esearch was done in the ancient universities ‘of the old world. To study in Beslin, Pavis, Vienna was itself a credential, as it ‘happened for example to William James, who after attending the Wundt laboratory in Leipeig. had obtained the chair of Psychology at Harvard. even though he had retuned from Germany 2s 2 confirmed anti-Wanétian, something that James did rot find convenient co say at the beginning of his career. ‘American culture was primarily geared to putting ideas into practice, the can-do spirit. But the seach for new ideas was occurring in Europe and in order for the US to cast off their feelings of inferiority, they needed to learn, liberate the disciplines from the empiricism in which they were embedded, and look at overseas models. ‘The project, as declared and pursued, was cwofold: to import the scientific ideas from Europe, but adapt them according to the needs of their young nation, which did not renounce pragmatism, making use of practical ideas, especially those chat ‘could bes fi their needs Te-wasin this process tha the fascination for “Caesar” Lombroso as “the inventor (of scientific criminology” occurred. A modem man of scence: this is how he was presented in the first biography about him which appeared in English in 1911, ‘written the year before by the German neurologist Hans Kurella and translated into English with the help of Havelock Ellis. The fact that it was fist released in Germany was atthe time an excellent reference for the cultivated part of the ‘American audience m search ot science, since Germany with its twenty-one state universities was seen as the epitome of scientific excellence For criminology and for modern criminal justice, however, the primacy was Italy eis “the glory of Italy, the land where Roman law, the foundation of modern law, was born” ~a German-American author pointed out ~ “that it has proceeded to the study of this problem [of criminslity] by the only truly scientific method” (Zinnmern 1898, 342). The first American Institute of Criminal Law and Crini- nology, founded in Chicago in 1909, decided to inaugurate “The Modern Criminal fence Series.” translating the best European scholars ofthe field, Three were Ital- jams: Lombroso was of course the First, followed by the sociologist Enrico Ferri, and by the jurist Raffaele Garofalo, Lombroso did not oppose his “Ameticanization.” Indeed, he deliberately con tributed to ity distributing paternity tiesto various Americans, which he publicly acknowledged as those which best applied his ideas. Unlike other European120 Patrizia Guarnieri academicians, he did not worry that his thought could be contaminated; for him, what counted above all was that his work was considered useful. In this sense, the attraction between him and America was reciprocal, more intensely and less ambiguously than it has been in other exes. ‘Americanization in ict always entailed new and unpredictable outcomes, unrec- cognizable in the initiation context, that responded to the needs of mobility and development of the new world, Hence, ideas that in Europe were not considered scientific enough, had success when re-adapted for American society. Lomibroso knew the fortune that phrenology by Franz Joseph Gall and Johann Sparzheims, for the magnetism of Franz Mesmer had in the United States. Lombroso cer- tainly knew of the American psychical researchers who had wanted to meet the ‘medium Eusapia Paladino from Puglia (his favorite), while he for the same reason had been derided by his Italian colleagues. Perhaps he learned about the reception that Americans gave to Freud: a triumphal one, unthinkable in Europe at che time, and fall of misunderstandings which very much tormented the Austrian professor. It is worth noticing that the Americanization that separately involved both Cesare Lomibroso and Sigmund Freud, produced decedes later recurrent compar isons between their ideas, which they personally never initiated. The two physicians had in fact no interest for exch other. Despite the proximity oftheir respective loca~ tions and the affinity oftheir disciplines, they never met, never wrote to and never quoted each other in their respective publications, although these were numer- ‘ous, But on the other side of the ocean they were acknowledged at the same time ‘with an extraordinary success. Their ideas were widespread in dfferenc ways, chen revised in subsequent waves, then banced. Their names were associated or con- fronted, especially with regard to Jewish science and nazism. Their theories on specific research topics such as childhood, sexuality. and delinquency were com- pared among scholars ~ in Italy, for example, by the Jewish psychiatrist Marco Levi Bianchini (Levi Bianchini 1921) and in the UK and the United States primatily among European Jewish psychoanalysts who had ied from Nazism, Recently, both Lombroso and Freud were reappraised in relation to new inves- tugations in neuroscience. The encounter and the clash that took place bewweest them, who died with thity years difference from each other, in 1909 and in 1939, are port of the paths and of the sinpredicrahle outcomes of certain ideas seen in different contexts, beyond the intentions of the protagonist, who in fact never met Developments and losses Freud landed in New York on August 21, 1909, to travel to Worcester, Mas- sachusetes where the psychologist Stanley Hall, a scholar of adolescence, had invited hhim for a meeting a¢ the Clark University, Also Lombrota showld have pone to the ‘United States in 1909, John Wigmore, dean of the Law School at Northwestern University had even visited him a¢ his home in Turin, in May 1908, to invite him and to appoint him as Harris lecturer in 1909-10 (Parmele 1911, xii). At the‘American and Wallan images of Lomnbroso 121 age of 74, Lombroso declined due to health and old age. Nevertheless, “during his final illness” he managed to write the introduction to the book Criminal Man, Accoring to the Classification of Cesere Lonbrose, Briefly Summarized by his Daughter Gina Lombneso Ferro; G.2. Putnam's Sons pubbshed 1 in 1911 in New York and London in “The Science Series” ‘What did Lombroso want to say to his American readers? He defined the essen tial core ofits science and its practical purpose, that it was “the study not of crime {in che abstract, bu ofthe criminal himse in order adequacely co deal with the evil cffees of his wrong-doing” (Lombroso 191 1b, xi-xi). He asserted the process by which, dowly and with dawbre, he had come t0 hit Criminal Man based on obser vations and on the experimental method that he had applied first to the sick in the asylums, then o the inmates of prisons (he recalled the cases of Villella,Verzeni, and Misdea) co investigate the differences rather than the similarities between them and normal individuals. Although the clinieal studies had confirmed the anthropological observations, all his atcempts would have been sterile hnd not 2 solid phalanx of jurist, Russian, German, Hungarian, [lian and American, ferdlized by correcting the germ and hasty conclusions one side, suggesting appropriate reforms and applications and, most important of all, applying my ideas on the offender o his individual and social prophylaxis and cute (Lombroso 191 1b, xvi. Lombroso spoke then of criminal anthropology as a composite building which ‘many after him together had contribute to build, a stone upon a stone. He used the plural: they or we had raised it, expanded and improved it~ firstly Enrico Ferri who had added the two criminal types: “occasional criminal” and “eriminal by passion.” They strengthened and defended the building they built. At the begin ning, the school of criminal anthropology was attacked from all parts of Europe with “calurnnies and misrepresentations which always follow in the train of auda- cious innovations.” They were accused of excessive indulgence cowards criminals, of pursuing criminals’ impunity ard release, of considering criminals merely and eternally saves oftheir instinets ‘We can notice that these allegations were significantly different from the nearly ‘opposite ones that che leftists raised in the late 1970s and 1980s against biologi cal determinism of which they believed Lombroso was the founder. In 1909, he claimed that criminal anthropology “on the contrary, gave a powerful impewss to the lboss of statisticians and sociologists” The science had matured, abo thanks to them, One nation, however ~ America ~ had understood it and “speedily put into practice, with [brilliant results.” The Reformatory at Elmira the probation sys- tem, the juvenile courts, and the George junior Republic were the “achievements ‘wore the realizations he wanted to mention in the 322 pages of the summary of his ‘work, composed by his daughter Gina who had “shared in my anxieties, insults, and triumphs" (Lombroso 1911b, xix).122 Pavizie Guarnieri Maybe chat list was used to win the favor of the American public ~ but not only for that. Lombroso had already written about the above-mentioned American institutions several years ealier in texts aimed at European readers. In his work con Les applications de Liantiopolegiecrininelle of 1891 he included the probation system as he did in the Ktalian edition of Criminal Man. Inthe third volume, which Lombroso considered as the most important of his work, he illustrated at length the “excellent preventive institution for minor age or occasional offenders.” which was in force in the USA and which was excended to adults in Massachusecs from 1878, He had above all commended the correctional facility of New York, from which he chimed to receive and vead the weekly newsletter written by the convicts In Flmira he saw “the first practical and serious application of my studies,” because the fixed penaley corresponding co the crime committed vas replaced by the indeterminate sentence, which was each time adapted to the individualized study and treatment of the indicted (Lombroso 1897, 538-43). Both the probation system and the Eknira reformatory dated back to the 1870s. Elmira was opened in 1876, when the fist version of Criminal Man was isued. ‘The enunciation of criminal types and especially the occasional criminal had yet to come. Believing like Lombroso did, tat an Italian book had inspired American institutions, seems les likely than Havelock Ellis had stated in 1891: the founders of Elmira “seem to have been guided purely by practical and social considera- tions and to have had no knowledge of the scientific movement that was arising in Europe”; where, on the other hand, criminologists had worked “purely as scientific westigators” (Ellis 1891, iv) ‘The distinction between the practical and the theoretical was in reality less sharp, atleast based on what the founder of criminal anthropology told himself, American commentators insisted perhaps to show a mutual convenience: “in the future, there is now good reason co hope, these two currents of scientific advance and practi= cal social progress will be united” (Ellis 1891, iv). While the US certainly needed European science, the later could benefit from the US interest Ie “snow essential that these reforms should be studied in the light of this new science of erimi- nology and that they should be given 2 sound scienntic bass. European science and American practical reform should be broughe together,” argued the sociologist Maurice Parmelee (Parmelee 1908, 6). “The intent was to import European scientific ideas and adapt them to America (or “Americanize”}, in a planned fashion (Petit 2007; Piffei 2009): firs, by cransat- ing for the American public, or better bysummarizing and presenting in a digestible ‘way the European treaties on criminology. Lombroso’ work was part of this. His major work appeared in the United States in two versions ~ not translations ~ in the same year and, 28 already said, more than three decades after the only abridged dition of one of his minor books was issued. What audience were the publish~ cers GP. Putnam's Sons and Lite, Brows and Company aiming 3 To understand this parallel editorial operation one would need to know the intentions of those ‘who had promoted it (and now we have some background of one of the two), and ‘whether they succeeded or not.‘American and italian images of Lombroso 123 ‘Obviously, the American readers did not engage themselves in a comparative analysis between the volumes of 1911 that apparently were proposing to be the same work. Such comparative analysis his not been made, nether between the two nor with the original thitd volume ot the fith edition, which is the main one where non-biological aspects are addeessed, and to which both American editions inake explicit reference. What interests vs here is how each volume was presented to the American public. Certain differences are evident. ‘The volume of 322 pages published as the 27th in “The Science Series” was edited by the zoologist FE, Beddard and by the Columbia University psychologist Fdward Lee Thornlike, wha in 1912 une ahont to he appointed chairman of the ‘American Psychological Association. In Criminal Max, Acconting to the Classifiea- tion of Cesare Lomioso, he had writen only the introduction which I mentioned above. The author was in reality Gina Lombroso Ferrero as stated on the ttle page, Lombroso’s collaborator and daughter writes in the frst person. explicitly distin- guishing in the text what she referred to as “my father and his disciples” from her own observations, including the large space dedicated to crime prevention, Lombroso Ferrero devoted an entire chapter to this subject, where she insisted on the “preventive institutions for destitute zdults” and in particular on the work done by the Salvation Army, which “fom what I was able to observe in America, seems tome the best organized” (Lombroso G. 1911, 167). One could say that her work sort of flirted with America (“amerianeggiasse"}; combining what appeared to be the most useful end of Lombroso’s ideas with the actual practices organized in var- ious parts of the United States. | believe she did it well aware that her father was altogether in favor of an effeerive American “contamination” of the ideas he had developed in Italy. ‘The other volume instead, published with the support ofthe American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology ot Chicago, had the now deceased Lombroso as author and bore the tile Crime: its Causes and Remedies, translated from the French edition Le eine; causes et remédes (1899) and less close to the original Uomo detinguente. The choice of the title was not the best, because the great merit of Taallan criminal anchropotogy consisted of abandoning the study of crime as an abstract entiy, and focusing on the concreteness of criminal individuals ~ and espe- fially the American commennatare treced thie merit A ramman preconception that Lombroso recognized but one type of criminal, the atavstc one, wasn't true and Lombroso had indeed rejected it, ckimed sociologist Maurice Parmelee, who noticeably had been in charge of the introduction (Parmelee 1911, xxviii). This came in addition to the translated preface which Lombroso had written in 1906 and devoted to Max Nordau, wherein the author rejected the accusation “of hav- ing neglected the econonsic and social caused of crime and of having confined [...] to the study of the born criminal.” “Strange to say” but Lombroso was ignorant in biology and especially in inher- itance, which he mixed up with atavism, observed Parmelee, who emphasized the transition froma mainly naturalistic and anthropological approach toward a growing recognition on the social causes of crime. The fitst biological approach could not124 Patizia Guarnieri avoid co be challenged, but after he had greatly modified his sociological concep tion and “whatever may have been his faults, Lombroso was the great pioneer [. in the great movement towards the positive, applications of the inductive methods ‘of modern science to the problem of crime” (Parmelee 1911, xxii). That’s why the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology had chosen his most ‘mature work to make him known in the US, Parmetee was alluding to 2 con- vergence of intents, when he quoted a long passage in a letter from Lombroso to his fellow Wigmore, concerning the next National Conference on Criminal Law and Criminology in Chicago, which “will mark a new era in the progress of criminal law" Ie included a number of recommendations to his American colleagues: if | could offer any suggestion to a 10 competent a body of men, it would be to emphasize the importance of apportioning of mestizos, nat according t0 the offence, but according to the offender. To this end the probation system, which itis the great credit of America to have introduced, should be extended 50 a5 t0 suit the offender's rype and individuality. It is futile to fix a term of imprisonment (novel) for the born criminal: but it is most necessary to shorten to the minimum the term for the eriotional offender, and to modify it for the coceasional offender, and to place the latter under the supervision of 2 judge, and not to let his fase be so fixed tht it amounts merely to a modern form of slvery (Lombroso to .H. Wigmore, Turin, May 3, 1909 quoted by Parmelee, 1911, xii ‘The Italian scientist expressed his appreciation of the American penal reforms: it was what chey wanted. The initiatives of the American Insticute, starting from the Conference of the 1909 series, were all actions of “propaganda of the Science of Criminology among the American legal profesion, who are hitherto quite deafto its appeal,” explained its President Wigmore to Enrico Ferri, another Italian who got involved in the mission (Wigmore to E. Ferri January 16, 1909 in Petie 2007, 877). With che edition of the works of Lombroso, Ferri, and Garofalo, and a few other Europeans, the Committee on translations for the modern criminal science series lal ie “purpose o€ caching che lawyers” aun fortis hey had eienen a law publishing, house ~ Little, Brown and Co, Boston, “The treatises need not to be the very latest; the important thing was that the works would become accessible to that public and for that each author wis to grant permission to revise the texts as they felt appropriate (Wigmore to the President of the Committee WW. Smithers, June 15, 1909, in Pest 2007, 889). Crime: its Causes and Remedies was admittedly not a translation, but an English version which was in turn based upon the “French version” published in 1899, mnainly hated on the third volime of the lat Italian editian (which, however, wae of 1896-7), warned the translator Henry P. Horton who benefitted of the German 1902 translation by Kurella and Jentsch, from which he eut “few notes and other details interesting to Italians only” (Horton 1911, xaexvi). The result was a mess‘American and tian images of Lombroso 128 For the permission to print, now that tae author had died, Wigmore had co ask Gina Lombroso Ferrero. Her leters of protest, recently published, reveal her oppo- sition: in her view, from that edition presented to the American publi, they could not understand what Lombroso had realy written, She asked thatthe missing parts bee atleast summarized, like she had done for Putnam's. Gina Lombroso Ferrero did not need to bother, replied Wigmore by insisting on his request. “Will you, therefore fill out dhe documents of consent accordingly? As to the preface, we can arrange for it ourselves, instead of asking you to do ic In the facare, was his vague promise, perhaps one could hope “of trandating Professor Lombroso’s entire book Buc no publisher in this country would undertake it at present (Wigmore ro Cina ‘Lombroso, April 19, 1910, in Petit 2007, 895). In other words, cake it or leave it: and Gina Lombroso Ferrero gave up. Tes ironic thatthe blame for the incorrect reception of Lombroso’s work in the US was later put on her. To remedy the poor translation, Mary Gibson and Nicole Rafter sued new American editions of wo criminology books by Lombroso, which had appeared in the US during his lifetime, or shordy after. There was another paradox: the good “translations” (the new Criminal Manisa ficly elaborate synopsis of various versions) came out when his reputation was not good anymore. Starting ffom the late 1970s, criminal anthropology has become quite an easy target for controversies and has been under many attack: from Mosse, Gould, and dozens of critical and radical criminologists. But when did the American fascination with him finish? ‘According t0 the criminologist Nicsle Rafter, “his reputation went into an ccdlipse from which did not recover for neaely a century” (Rafter 2009, 286); that is, until today. Jonathan Simon, Professor of Law at Berkeley, has another opinion. In 2006, he released a brilliant and very detailed essay on 2 specialist journal to show “How the inventor of scientific criminology who died at the beginning of the twentieth century continues to haunt American crime control 2t the begin= ning of the eweney-ist.” ‘Therefore, in his opinion, the influence of Lombroso, far from being eclipsed by his death, persisted and still persists in che United sates Even the periodization of the judgments of these two American scholars are very far apart, Rafters sources go no forther than 1917 and regaeding “American criminal anthropologists” she limits herself to alist of nine authors and books pub- lished berween 1893 and 1910 (Rafter 2009, 280, quoting Rafter 1992). Wiliam Healy with his Individual Delinquent of 1915 is missing, although his work repre- sents the best-known criminology treaty made by an American author until the 1980s. Further, Healy’s work has offen been related to the individual-approach of the Italian criminologist, as mentioned below. ‘Simon provides quantitative evidence of Lombroso’s prominence in American legal thought from 1891 co 1990 by the number of quotes made in specialized ‘American magazines over a century, and comparing them to the citations of Healy, Ernest Burgess (of the famed Chicago School of sociology), and Sheldon Glueck, 4 criminologist at Harvard Law School. Simon's conclusions contradict those of126 Patizia Guarnieri Rafter when he scresses chat for most of the period considered the presence of Lombroso isthe highest ~ and a constantly growing one (Simon 2005-6, 2143-4), Concluding remarks But why these different conclusions regarding Lombroso’ reception in America? Evidently there must have been two different “Lombrosi.” Rafter insists on a criminologist with a song profile in biology (insomuch that she envisages him rchabilitated ":oday [...] when biological explanations of behavior again prevail”), which seems to be the motivation for her polemical attitude toward Lombrose (Rafer 2009, 286). Simon instead distinguishes between various versions of Lombroso’ thought and its effects, such as the rejection by the European jurists and the enthusiasm of the American lawyers. The influence of positivist criminol~ ‘ogy appears to be related co the enthusissm about rehabilitation in che American criminal justice, in contrast to the use of punishment as a deterrent. Simon also points to Italian positivist criminology in America in analyzing historical rends in crime control theories and policies. If these studies are not compared with each other, the thesis of criminologist Shafter seems to confirm that in Italy the consensus has been mainly to condemn Lombroso, without historical context ~ after the long decades of silence in which the Taian scientist most known outside Kay was buried There was not such silence in the United States, as Simon’s research has shown. The initiative of the American Institute of Criminal law in 1909 to import the European science of crime ~ “but always in an American perspective” — has apparently been successful, The publica~ tion of William Healy, who like many American intellectuals had come to study in Europe, in London, Berlin, and Vienna where he tried to get in touch with Freud, ‘was hailed as a breakthrough comparable to that of the Italian inventor of criminol- gy: Healy closed one era of criminology to open the next. This was comparable to the reception of Lombroso more than a century before, said a well-known history book of American criminology (Fink 1938). The time-p The individual Detinguent of 1915 and the translation of Criminal Man, ewenty years ifone considers che expanded (and the Ie organic) edition of 1895 to which both ‘American publications of 1911 had referred to, and less than fifty years from the very fist skinny original version of 1876. In any case, it had not passed a century as it seemed instead to Arthur Fink in his work of 1938. ‘The date 1938 brings ur back tothe tragic events in Italy: Wich the introduction of the racial laws of 1938 Jews were forced to hide or escape. The “Measures for the defense ofthe race in fascist schools” af dismissed the Jewish teachers and students fom Italian schools. universities, and academies. Only a very few returned after the war: the forced migration of displaced scholars always resulted. in Teal in dificuley in returning — or no return at all. The consequences of fscism for Italian culture have been long-lasting and deep. One reflects on the small nunaber of teachers who refused to pledge allegiance and give an oath to fascism in 1931, or on the‘American and italian images of lombroso 127 many that in 1938 were expelled and replaced, and almost never reinstated after the war. Together with their names and academic positions, their ideas as well were erased, discredited, or ignored, given the Jewish origin of the authors, Ideas that hha citculated internationally, which elsewhere were fertilized and transformed, did not return, nor were they inserted into contexts now different from those in which they were developed, ‘Something similar happened in Ttaly to the theories of Lombroso, much dis- Lanse within positivism, devalued by neo-idealism, and dien decidedly rejecced by fascism. In 1931, Mario Carrara, son-in-law of Lombroso and his successor to the chair of criminal anthropology. had to leave this postion because he refused to swear the oath of allegiance, together with only 11 other profesors out of 1200, Given that even “the mathematical sciences, if cultivated by a Jew cannot be any- thing else than Semitic.” so much more were the human sciences of Lombroso and Freud condemned. In 1939, the President of the National Institute of Fascist Culture, a distinguished jurist, declared that the positvistic school of law was to be totally rejected because, similar to the classical school of Beccaria, it had been tunable to conceive a criminal law based on race. The racist concept of law would henceforth constituze the basis of fascism (Maggiore 1939, 144). Silence fell on Lombroso; certainly nothing was admitted about reforms which, rightly or wrongly, seemed inspired by him, especially those regarding rehabilitation and prevention. Questions on the nonerecurn to Italy ofideas that elsewhere had led ‘coward innovative paths 2s it happened t> criminal anthropology the American way also means having to deal with the anti-semitism and opportunism of an academic culture of which also Lombroso’s science became a victim, Acknowledgments | wish to thank Paula Fass, Michael C. Grossberg, Michele Pifferi, Edward Shorter for their comments and suggestions, and Per Jorgen Ystchede for his patient translation. Notes 1 See *Lombroso ~a totalitarian?” Sole 24 Ore, Suppl. Sunday, May 11, 2003, p. 30 under the te, leters of N, Erba and the response by A. Massarent accused of having positively reviewed the biography of Lombroso by Delia Frigess (2003). 2 Response made by Luigi Carrara, in reaction to the words spoken by Pietro Ross, the President of the Academy of Sciences of Turin, aa conference on “Cesare Lombroso sci- entits and che new Italy" (November 5-6, 2005), published later in a volume, edited by 'S. Montaldo (2010). Doring the Fascist pesiod, the persecution which truck Lombroso's fanly ieee was mocivated by polities and race, If we limit ourselves co "scientiBe reper ceussions” and che forced brain dain that eccusted, one can mention that in 1931 Maio Carrara married to Lomibroso’s daughter Paola, lost his professorship and was expelled from the University of Turin because he refed to swear an oath of loyalty eo the fascist regime. He died the year before che racial laws of 1938 were issued. Moreover, because128 Patizia Guarnieri cof thee vs, Lombroso' son Ugo was expelled from the University of Genoa where he ‘aught physiology and had to emigrate to Pais, 3 About Iain secondary sources ofthe 1980s on Htalian posiivism, see at least Poget (1987, 261-7). 4 On the important relationship between Cesare Lombroso and Helen Zimmern, see Knepper (2011, 360-1). Simon describes her attiaude toward Lombroso 2 “typical of the American response” Her arcicles first appeared in the popular Science moutly, and then reprinted in che magazine The Green Bag, patronized by the Legal Reals (Simon 2005-2006, 2145). References Becket, P2010) ‘Lombroso come logo dell memoria dell criminologi’sin 8. Monaldo {e8) Cette Lantos Ci ens ele no haa, oogna:t Maino: 33-51 Dasposinions urgend sulllsrunone superior", r. dcr. 1227, 28 August 1931 ae 18 “Prowvedimenti per la dfs della atta nel seul cits", decr n.1380, 8 September 1938, Elis, H. (1891) The New York State Refrmaton in Ebi, London: Stanley Pl. Fink, H. (1938) Causes of Crime: Bilal Tews in the United Sate, 1800-1915. Philadelphia: University of Peonsyvania Pros. Friges,D. 2003) Cee Lomlnso.Terno: Enaudi Gentile, G. (1917, 2nd edn 1925) ‘Le origin del Alsoia contemporanea in Talia. in 1G. Gentle (1969) Storied floefi italaw, acura di E. Garin, vol 1. Firenze: Sanson Giacaneli F (1995) cio, Flint. Income’ i C. Lombrons, Dette Geo fle ta. Seite acura cD. rigs, F Giacanelli L. Mangoni. Torino: Bola Boringhier: so, Gibson, M. (2002) Bom 0 Crime. Cee Lambs ad the Onis of Bilal Criminal. ‘Wesspor-London: Praeger: Heal. rans. (2004) Na peri min, C.Le le origin dela rival leg. Milano: B. Mondadori Gibson, M. (2010) “Uno sguarlo americano su Stephen Jey Goul!, Conenporanc, 1383548, Gould, S.). (1981) The Mimeasie of Man, New York: Norton; Il eras. (1985) Iueligeza oprinsn. Doma: Bdtort Bani Garner, (1993) 4 ca of did murke Law aud siewe it winteulcentry Tasca. Cambridge and New York: Polity Press. ‘Gearnien, ¥ (2002) "Mowe, Eneico' am EM, Pero © C. Ma) (eds) Atolls Haan Pathan. New York: Wold Psychiatric Asociation: 177-86, Garnier, P 2010) ‘1 aso Lombroso' vo: otends in S. Montaldo (ed) Cs Labs sins anus Ri. Bologna: i Matin, Horton, D. M. and Rich, K. («) (2004) The Crininal Auhropalaal Writings of Cesare mle Published in he Ergish Laguae Poel Litrare Dang the Lave 19h ond Eaty 201 Centres. Letinston-New York: The Ewin Mellen Press Horton, H. P(1911) Tras’ not’ in Lombroso C., rine: ts Cawes and Remedies Boson: Lide Brown and Ca. IaaelG. (2010) faim lc, La 11 Malina Knepper. P.@011) ‘Lombroto’ Jewish Wdentey and ies Implication for Criminology’, Auton aud New Zl Journal of Crnivlgy, 4% 955-369, ian ee ple ma. kl gine, Bolo‘American and Wtalian images of Lombroso 129 Korella H. (1911) Cesse Lombrso a Mader: Mo of Sn, tasted fom the German New York: Rebman Co. Levi Bianchini, M. (1921), Cesre Lombrso: un grandes rea, phat psa, 2109-12. Lombrova, C. (1890) ‘Sulla diffisione dela antropologis exininale’, in L. M. Drago, enna ati, Torin: Boecs. (oe, 1888, Las ome depres Buenos Kr) Lombroso C. (1891) Les applications de 'anmpolgi cine. Pars: lean Lombrosa, ©. (1897) Lame delinquent in wpport al’ srrpolgs, lla griradense ef lle ‘aa, Sa 8, vo. 3. Torino: Bocca, Lomboso, C. (1908) ‘Inerodusion” in Llyn df Cun Lambros ele sia ¢ ele sue cqptbasia Tair: Bowen, Lomoso, C. (19112) Gime: its Cases ont Rees, eanslated by H. P Horton. Boston tle Brown and Co. Lombroia,C. (191 1b) “nerodueton, in Crna Man Aconding the Clszation of Crore Lola, Brgy Sunmared by his Daher Gina Lone Fares, New York-London: GE Putnam’ Sons. Lomboso, C. (1995) Delo gen fila, Sot! wei, a cura iD. Friges, F Giacanli L. Mangon. Torino: Ballas Boringhieri. Lombose, C. (2006) Crit! Man, erapslted and with & new introduction of M. Gibson ‘and N. Rafer. Durham and London: Duke University Press Lombroso, G. (1911) Crininl Ma = Acorig tthe Csifaton of Csore Lobos, Brey Snare by his Danger Cine Lolo Foner. New York-London: GP. Patams Sons Maggoee G. (1939) isto penal oatario dll Soo toritro’, Riv italiana di dito pone, 1140-61 Mantgaze,P (1886) Cl evi pschi’ Ais per nope 1869-82. Marwcci, PP (2009) ‘Un'eredts senza ered Vaneropoogiseriminale in ita dopo ore di Cesare Lomi, ia . Monto, P Tappeo, Cee Lalas eo am ops, Torino: Uke: 291-300. Mesnl J (1900) ‘Le phénomene Lambros’, Mere de Face, 1: 6278. Morse, E, (1906) ‘Cesare Lombroso ela issoia scenic’ Lope di Chase Lombrse sella soz uel su appz, naova ed Torino: Boca: 354-84 Mose, G. L. (1978) Tied the Final Solutin. A History of European Raion. New Yor H. Fertig: Til. trans. (1986) If zziso in Envopa delle origi al? laste. Roma-Bari Taver Parmelee, M. (1908) The Prnpes of Anuiopoloy and Sacilegyin tt Relation t Criminal reed. New York: The Macmilin Co Yarmelee,M. (1911) ieredction ro the English Version’ tt Lomibroso C., Crime: Gaver, aud Reeds. Boston: Lele, Brown and Co, pp. xia ei, C. (2007) “Lombrozo en Chicago. Preencasearopeas en la modern criminal science america, i Quer ori per le sore de penis guide modem, 36: 01-90. Differ, M, (2009) "Exporting Criminology: the Indviduaization of Punishment in Europe and Aerie’ in L. Beck Varela, Ps Guster Vega and A. Spinoss (ed) Cioing lee ‘ales, Yeubol of Youre Leel History, voL3. Munich: M, Mexdenbauer: 49-57 Poggi S. (1987 urdusion ol pastime, Roaa-Dari Laterz after, N.. (1992) ‘Criminal Anthropology the Urited Sea’, Crnnaagy, 30: 525-45, afer, NHL (1997) Craring Bom Criminals Urbana: Univeriy of lino Pre [Rafer N.H. (2009), GH Stati Unit a . Momtldo, P, Tappero (eds) Core Lambs conto «a dep, Torino: Ute. 277-86. nino’, Anhivio generale di130° Patrizia Guarnieri Renneville, M, (2009) ‘La Francia’, in $. Montldo, P.Tappero (cds) Cesare Lombros cento ‘ani dopo, Torino: Utet: 203-11 Simon J. (2005-2006) ‘Pestvely Puncive: How che Inventor of Scientific Criminology who Died at the Beginning of the Twontieth Century Continues eo Haunt American Crime Control at the Beginning ofthe Twenty-Frst’, Texas Law Review, 84: 2138-72. Zinmern, H. (1898) ‘Criminal Anthropology in [ealy’, Green Beg 10: 342-8.