ABSTRACT
Towards the close of the last century a serious issue stirred up controversy: who might be the man or what might be the fact or the idea that could assume the honour of conferring its name on the dying century. Chronology and history delight in such designations: centuries, like notaries’ green box files, must have labels. It is generally accepted that the sixteenth century was that of Leo X, the seventeenth century was that of the Sun King, the eighteenth century that of Arcadia: arbitrary designations, irrational and false, but eminently memorable and, as such, powerfully educative. Might the nineteenth century be the century of steam or Herbert Spencer, electricity, or Richard Wagner? Italian patriots, ready as always, claimed there could be no doubt that this was the century of Giuseppe Verdi. The question remained unresolved and will have to be decided by posterity—who will have no such doubts, however, when it comes to naming the new century. If a period of time is to be called after a being or idea that had most influence on its spirit, which has most profoundly dominated human existence, then that designation can already be predicted: the current century cannot be given a name: it can no more be the century of Marconi than Santos Dumont; not the Suffragettes nor Alceste de Ambris; neither the century of the refouleur corset, nor yet Gabriele d’Annunzio: it will simply be the century of Cinema.
