LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, AND MEMORY:

Nichole Sarra

The story of Malta is seldom told in history courses at any level of the United States education system. The small island country off the coast of Italy is generally briefly mentioned, if at all, for its significance to the major players in World War II, namely Italy and Britain. Malta, however, has much more historical significance than it is given credit for by most scholarly work. It provides a unique perspective on the intricacies of decolonization and nationalism as well as the intersection of language and identity. This study argues for the importance of language in pushing forward both nationalist movements and decolonization.

Tensions in Malta’s relatively recent history can be traced back to British occupation of the island and Malta’s cultural roots. The island country, due to close proximity, has a long established history of Italian traditions and influences. This cultural similarity to Italy was a primary concern for the British Empire. The British feared Italy’s influence could lead to an irredentist movement on the part of the native Maltese people. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the irredentist movement was a popular political campaign in Italy. This movement called for the political unification of geographic areas in which Italian-speaking people constituted a majority. This worry led to the establishment of an English Language Assimilation Policy in Malta beginning in 1870.1 This policy, while encouraging the use of English as the primary language in Malta, also promoted the use of the Maltese language as an alternative to Italian. At this time, Italian was one of the most commonly spoken languages in Malta. British distrust of this Italian influence resulted in colonial support for the native Maltese language. However, Italian had been primarily used in civic and political life and the push against the language was looked upon unfavorably by many Maltese citizens. This is but one example of the British attempt to de-Italianize Malta during their colonial rule. The British promoted the use of English and Maltese through claims that the children of Malta could not be expected to be fluent in the three languages of Italian, English, and Maltese. However, the British advocacy of the Maltese language proved to be to its detriment in later years as nationalists came to worry that the language was tainted by the endorsement of its use by the British. The island’s cultural history and identity, despite clear influences from Latin tradition and Italian culture, is complex due to near constant conquest from colonial powers. By the beginning of British occupation of Malta in the early nineteenth century, Malta already had a complex multilingual, multicultural identity stemming from strong connections to continental Europe due to previous occupation by the French and rule under the Knights Hospitaller. These factors defy any attempt to define or understand Malta as one singular and distinguishable existence. Due to the inability to pinpoint exactly what Maltese identity historically means, it is the aim of this paper to understand how the use of the native language of the island in conjunction with the nationalist movement came to define a Maltese identity that eventually led to decolonization and emergence into statehood in 1964.2

Evidence of the Maltese desire for independence begins after the end of French occupation on the island. In 1802, Article 10 of the Treaty of Amiens stated that Malta would become an independent state under the aegis of numerous European powers, namely Britain, France, Prussia, and Russia.3 This semblance of independence, however, was not to last. Due to its location in the Mediterranean Sea, Malta was of great strategic importance. For Italy, Malta could be a stepping stone down to North Africa. For other European powers like France and Britain, Malta could be a gateway to the Middle East through the Mediterranean Sea. Due to this, Malta’s aspirations for autonomy were overlooked during the early nineteenth century.

In the late middle ages, the Italian language took hold in Malta as the language of education, official discourse, courts of law, the Church, and many other aspects of public affairs.4 The use of the Italian language linked Malta to not only Italy but to continental Europe as well. In fact, the local dialect of Malta had no official formalization until 1930.5

British and Italian relations in Malta were still a main point of political contention during the 1920s. At this time, Anglo-Italian relations remained relatively civil despite the growing concern of Italy's new fascist leader Benito Mussolini. Uncertainty in Maltese colonial politics defined this era of Maltese history. There were two primary political factions on the island at this time: those who supported British colonial rule and influence, and the Nationalists who vouched for the preservation of Malta’s Latin identity. These nationalists claimed to be loyal to British colonial rule and supported the teaching of the English language in Maltese schools, however they did not want this to result in the erasure of Maltese culture which was solely discussed in the Italian language. Essentially, the political arena in Malta during the 1920s was characterized by tensions between the nationalists and the “Britishers,” with the nationalists supporting Latin cultural heritage while the Britishers advocated complete loyalty to the British colonial rule. Tensions among these groups were heightened by the belief of the Britishers that nationalist advocacy for Latin heritage was in actuality a declaration of support for Italian irredentism.

In the years leading up to the Second World War, the trouble amongst the nationalists and the pro-colonial Britishers had long been brewing. Despite Malta still being under British colonial rule, the island had been granted the right to self-governance in 1921.6 Under this self-government, the pro-colonial party had only once held the popular majority for a short time between 1927 to 1930. The pro-colonial party, known officially in Maltese politics as the Constitutional Party (and unofficially as the “Britishers”), was led by Lord Gerald Strickland. Born in Valletta in 1861, Strickland was a unique political figure in Malta being the son of a prominent British naval officer from the noble Strickland family and a Maltese aristocrat who was the heiress to the fifth Count della Catena in Malta. Strickland served as the Prime Minister of Malta from 1924 to 1932.7 In 1921, he founded the Anglo-Maltese party which later merged with the Maltese Constitutional Party to become the Constitutional Party of Malta. Aside from this brief interlude of constitutional rule, various wings of the nationalist movement dominated Maltese politics in the early twentieth century. The goal of the Nationalist Party was to increase the powers of Maltese self-government as a first step towards full Maltese independence. This sentiment in favor of the end of colonial rule on the island was, of course, at odds with the British imperial political agenda and their military strategy. Malta was an essential military post for the British Empire, providing it with full provisions of self-government and independence would put the British at a disadvantage in the Mediterranean arena.

The phenomenon of italianita, or Italian sentiment, in Malta meant that the British could never fully absorb Malta into their sphere of influence. Malta’s strong connection with the culture of Italy gave rise to the British colonial goal of deconstructing Maltese Latin heritage through the attack of the use of the Italian language on the island. Maltese nationalist leaders believed that the erasure of Latin culture would result in Malta falling under complete British colonial dominance. This attempted cultural cleansing was much slower than ethnic cleansing, however, and there was no violent ethnic persecution involved in the British policy of de-Italianization. Still, the removal of the culture and heritage of a people greatly diminishes any semblance of autonomy. Through attempts to eradicate Italian and Latin cultural identity in Malta, the British were attempting to anglicize the Maltese people in order to fully integrate them into the British Empire. The British did not support the Maltese language for any reason but to the point that it furthered their own political aims with Malta. These attempts by the British to erase Italian culture were rooted in the belief that the Maltese nationalist movement was a disguise for a Maltese desire for political unification with Italy. This, however, was not the case. Maltese nationalists, while wanting to maintain cultural ties with Italy, had no desire for political unification and rather wanted full and total independence as their own nation.

The pre-war Nationalist Party in Malta was led by Sir Ugo Misfud and Dr. Enrico Mizzi. Misfud was a statesman who had been exposed to both British and Italian cultural influences and thus represented the moderates in the Nationalist Party. Mizzi, on the other hand, was far less amicable to compromise and was a firm advocate for the self-government of Malta and the concept of italianita. The opposition to the Nationalist Party led by Misfud and Mizzi was the Constitutional Party led by Lord Gerald Strickland. Strickland’s party attacked the Nationalists by portraying them as disloyal to the British Crown and guilty of sedition, fascism and secret conspiracy to overthrow British rule with the goal of the annexation of Malta to Italy.8 The Constitutional Party advocated for the protection and advancement offered by the continued British sovereignty over Malta and supported punishment of those who expressed anti-colonial sentiments. When Italy joined World War II on the side of Germany, the Constitutional Party had found the opportunity they had been waiting for to vilify the nationalists. While the Nationalist Party was outspoken about not desiring an Italian political union but achieving the continuation of Italian and Latin cultural traditions, the Constitutional Party was able to disseminate rhetoric suggesting the Nationalist Party was sympathetic to Italy and therefore supporters of fascism. The Constitutional Party used this to its advantage in order to spread fear that the nationalists were, in fact, an internal Italian fascist threat in Malta. To take it one step further, they propagated the belief that in the coming conflict between Italy and Britain in World War II, the nationalists in Malta would side with Italy and be a threat to political stability. Due to these suspicions, 120 nationalist party members and leaders were arrested and interned between May and June 1940.9 The perceived threat posed by the internees can be seen in this political cartoon depicting a caricature of the internees behind a barbed wire fence attempting to defy the British lion. Included among those arrested was Nationalist Party leader Dr. Enrico Mizzi who, on May 30, 1940, was taken into custody while at the Malta Printing Press along with forty-seven other Maltese citizens who were known to express nationalist sentiments.10 The British colonial government feared an Italian retaliation in an attempt to annex Malta and as such placed the internees in Fort S. Salvatore, a crucial naval dockyard in Valleta’s Grand Harbor.11 Any attack by Italy on the dockyard would put the lives of the so-called pro-Italians in jeopardy due to its location near a major fuel depot. The internees were then eventually deported to Uganda in 1942.12 In this way, the British attempted to stop fascist and Italian sympathizers from coordinating with Italy in an attack against British colonial power.

The internment of the Nationalist Party members was a moment of great contention in Maltese political history in the twentieth century. The deportation of those arrested was, in fact, an illegal action taken by the Governor General Sir Walter Dobbie. The Governor of Malta did not have the power to deport any British subjects in Malta and, seeing as Malta was under British colonial rule, the Nationalist Party members were British subjects. Malta’s Council of Government was working to approve legislation that would give Dobbie the power of deportation, however he ordered the deportation of the internees on February 4, 1942 while legal proceedings were still taking place.13 The actions taken by Dobbie were found to have been illegal and those who had been deported, including Nationalist Party leader Dr. Enrico Mizzi, were repatriated to Malta in 1944 and 1945. Shortly thereafter, Mizzi was elected Prime Minister of Malta in 1950. This event was significant in the trajectory of Maltese politics through the further division of the Nationalist and Constitutional Parties. As such, it has been commemorated in a marble inscription at the Law Courts in Valletta which was unveiled on February 19, 1994.14

Colonial politics in Malta during the time between the two World Wars were characterized by the increasingly challenging role of traditional Maltese-Italian culture. Prior to this time period, Italy did not have much vested interest in the island of Malta, being content to leave the island as it was. This was largely due to Italy’s government being grateful for Britain’s support for the liberation and unification of Italy during the Risorgimento of 1849 to 1871. Due to the British support of Italian unification, the Italian government promoted Anglo-Italian friendship and cooperation. In order to avoid endangering this relationship, the Italian government made no moves to annex Malta from Britain or entertain any semblance of Maltese desire for unification with Italy despite the ongoing Italian irredentist movement in Italy during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This changed, however, with the transition to fascist leadership in Italy in 1921. The new fascist leadership of Italy began seeking out potential irredentist sentiment in Malta but found little to no real support for the movement on the island. There were very few Nationalist Party members who had irredentist tendencies despite the propaganda pushed by the pro-colonial party. Of those who did express such tendencies, all were from the Mizzian faction led by the radical nationalist Enrico Mizzi. To the majority of the National Party, however, this group was considered a liability to the party as a whole. Italian consul-general Villeray commented in 1928:

Il partito nazionalista, che, Ira i capisaldi del suo programma pone in prima linea la difesa della lingua e della cultura italiana e le piu' cordiali relazioni coll'Italia, nella sua grandissima maggioranza non e' irredentista: solo una parte minima, che fa capo all' on. avv. Enrico Mizzi ha tendenze irredentiste, ma non solo non e' seguita, ma e' anche deplorata dalla maggior parte dei componenti del partito, che ritiene che l'attitudine del Mizze serva a giustificare l'appoggio incondizionato che Strickland trova presso il Governo Imperiale ed i suoi rappresentanti a Malta.15

This viewpoint was corroborated by a similar statement made by a prominent Nationalist newspaper in Malta:

The language question, in fact, is anything but a question of disloyalty and irredentism: it is a case of national dignity, because we are not a branch of sheep or rams that are being simply walked over in accordance with the custom of the master to whom we belong. We are an eminently civil people, having our own language, our own uses, customs and religion. We should therefore exalt our own character under any nation that we happen to find ourselves, and never betray our own nationality, if we do not want to be the laughing stock of everyone. Our language has ever been the Italian language and consequently we should keep our guard over it for our national dignity.16

Despite these clear attempts to disassociate the Nationalist Party from Italian irredentism, the pro-colonial side of the political spectrum, namely the Constitutional Party led by Lord Gerald Strickland, continued to push this propaganda. This primarily happened during the first two Nationalist administrations that held power after Malta obtained self-government between 1921 and 1927. Tensions continued to heighten when Strickland, supported by the fledgling Labor Party, took office in 1927. Strickland was an advocate of “free choice” for parents to choose which language, Italian or English, their children would learn in government run schools. However, Strickland coupled this “free choice” with the establishment of public schools in Malta that promoted the use of English in education. During this time, English teachers who were brought to Malta were paid more than their Maltese counterparts and there were attempts to have Italian and French members of religious orders replaced by English members. The latter was especially pushed when these orders, such as the Jesuits or the Freres, ran established schools.

As previously mentioned, the Italian language was incredibly important in Malta, having been used for over five centuries as a primary language. The significant use of Italian was instrumental in the formation of Italian culture in Malta. The use and understanding of Italian were status symbols of the pro-Italian elite class. This division of language by class reflected the division between the conservative upper classes and the working classes who primarily communicated in Maltese. As such, language became a political weapon and primary dividing factor in Malta. The colonial government exacerbated this problem by adding the enforced teaching of English and attempting to make English a desirable language for the people of Malta. In order to do this, the British favored English-speaking civil servants and traders in Malta. They also supported the upward mobility of English speakers for use as allies in the political arena while actively hindering the political and social progress of primary Italian speakers. While the distinctive parties that were established along linguistic lines have already been explored, there were many other ways in which language was used as a determining factor for participation in Maltese politics. For instance, to be qualified to vote for a member of Malta’s Council of Government, an elector was required to demonstrate competent knowledge of English.17 Additionally, in order to be appointed to a civil service position contenders were required to take a series of examinations in which the use of English was mandatory. English was a required qualification for employment in public service as well such as the police force, the Maltese Military Corps, and the Mercantile Marine. In this way, the British colonial government made English the basis not only for political participation but economic advancement and employment opportunities as well. For their part, this economic factor was beneficial to the Maltese perception of English as many began seeing the ability to speak the language as being linked to economic advancement and career outlooks. The ability to speak English was particularly useful for those who would be competing with other workers within the British colonial empire or even for Maltese merchants who would be engaged with trade. Having a universal language allowed for easier access to economic resources within the British Empire. Where the colonial government arguably blundered was in the forced nature of anglicization coupled with the compulsory aspects of de-Italianization.

The topic of Maltese identity is exceedingly complex and difficult to define due to hundreds of years of colonial conquest. It would seem that the native culture of the Maltese people has been lost to time as a result of their long history with European colonial powers. As a result of this, the next step to understand what Maltese identity requires studying the fortunes of the language of Malta, its use throughout this colonial conquest, and possible links between Maltese and nationalism that later arose under British rule in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The modern Maltese language is derived from Arabic despite the long practice of Roman Catholicism on the island and the fact that inhabitants were exposed to European influences for nearly seven centuries.18 The main reason for this subjugation to European powers, as mentioned before, was the strategic geographic location of the island between Southern Europe and North Africa. Being an island nation, the Maltese people were seafarers and migration to the English-speaking world, and later return to Malta, was important for shaping the Maltese identity.19 However, the most imperative influences to the growing Maltese sense of identity came under British rule through increased influences of nationalism and imperialism. According to Henry Frendo, a Maltese historian at the University of Malta:

As a British possession, and a fortress, Malta was clearly not a nation-state in the sense of a political entity wherein those who govern share the outlook and aspirations of the governed; but socially, Malta had the characteristics of nationhood. Isolation, homogeneity, and a common historical experience, aided the feeling of being Maltese; the islands were not, like the other British colonies, divided by race, religion, tribe or culture.20

While Malta had these social characteristics of nationhood, there are few instances of movements for full independence in the island’s history. Politically and economically, Malta was generally accepting of its dependence on colonial powers. However, under British rule Maltese culture came under attack, leading to the beginning of the nationalist movement. Without the impact of British colonial rule, it is likely that Malta would not have developed a sense of national identity in terms of a united people seeking total independence. This is due to a number of factors that only arose through British rule such as the English Language Assimilation Policy of 1870 which, in an effort to rid Malta of the Italian language, pushed the use of English and Maltese. The upheaval of the Italian language in Malta was an affront to many Maltese people seeing as Malta, “. . . had an old cultural identity attached to the presence of the Latin culture and that its language of culture was Italian. . .”.21 English, being the language of the colonizer, was seen as a threat to the growing Maltese national identity at the time. Despite the British allowing the use of Maltese, Italian was the language of official matters and culture. The Maltese native language was not fully developed, had a limited vocabulary, and no literary tradition. As such, topics of politics and culture could not be discussed in Maltese. The eradication of the usage of Italian could very well have meant the erasure of Maltese culture itself, thus explaining the italianita sentiments of the Maltese nationalists.

The entire population of Malta, both rural and urban, spoke and understood the native Maltese language. It was the language of casual conversation, local markets, and for the day-to-day practices of religious devotions and sermons. The primary advocate for the extension of the Maltese language was the Labor Union which was founded in 1921 and was significantly aligned with the Constitutional Party. The Labor Union, however, specifically pushed for the use of the Maltese language as a means of expression and to establish and adhere to their sense of native Maltese identity. Members of the Labor Union, generally coming from the working classes, had a different idea of the culture of Malta compared to the nationalists. This is due to the class division between those who spoke Italian and those who spoke Maltese. The working classes felt that they had more cultural ties to the Maltese language than Italian. For members of the Labor Union the infamous language question between Italian and English was not what mattered but rather the question of Italian versus Maltese. The Labor Union advocates recognized the benefits of learning English and saw no reason for the necessity of Italian so long as the Maltese language became fully developed. Here is where the class division along linguistic lines can be seen even more clearly as language came to emphasize the two opposing groups of professionals who were pro-Italian and organized Labor who were pro-Maltese. Seeing as Maltese was the language of lower classes and daily life, it was not used in the language of politics and councils on the island. The Labor Union pushed for the implementation of the people’s language in politics as this would aid in the creation of a Maltese nation. The later introduction of the use of Maltese in politics was owed in part to the colonial government’s policy of de-Italianization. While the British aimed to make it appear that they were trying to allow for the representation of the workers in Malta’s government, their main goal was to strengthen the Maltese language at the detriment of the Italian language.

Due to the parallel association between Maltese and English as promoted by the colonial government, the Constitutional Party, and the Labor Party, the Maltese language successfully grew and gained importance, eventually becoming formalized in 1930. The Nationalist Party had come to primarily represent the upper classes who wanted to maintain the use of Italian and the Italian heritage of Malta. As the linguistic-political debate continued on, their anti-British sentiments began to develop into anti-Maltese linguistic bias as well. The resulting class division came from the failure on the part of the Nationalist Party to align itself with the Maltese language which resulted in the lower classes moving to support the British colonial government which was advocating for their native language.22 The main goal of the British was the removal of Italian influence and supporting the native Maltese language just so happened to be aligned with this objective. The British acted as if they were supporters of the growth of the Maltese identity but in reality their support of the native language was rooted in the fact that it furthered their own political agenda. It was in this way that the controversy of the language question came to represent not only a linguistic and political conflict, but a source of class division as well.

There is an interesting point of contention in the discourse surrounding the language question in Malta. The leading authority on Maltese history is Henry Frendo, a professor of Modern History at the University of Malta, who in his multitude of works regarding Maltese history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to characterize Maltese nationalists as having supported the usage of Italian but not the Maltese language. There is, however, some dissenting opinion on the importance and impact of the native language. This comes from Oliver Friggieri, a prominent figure in Maltese literature known for poetry and literary criticism. He was one of the first contributors to literary history and criticism at the University of Malta. Friggieri’s work is much more critical of the Maltese language than that of Frendo. The main reason for this is the fact that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Maltese language had no standardized orthography and lacked a vocabulary that was sufficient to be extensively used.23 Friggieri characterizes the historical understanding of the Maltese language as being relegated to the working classes while Italian was the language of culture and higher classes. In effect, Friggieri significantly downplayed the importance of the Maltese language as a forming agent of the expanding sense of national identity that was occurring during this time. While Friggeri is correct about the lack of standardization of the Maltese language, its standardized alphabet was adopted in 1924. This coincided with the height of the political debate surrounding the language question and its relationship to the British agenda of de-Italianization. Despite Friggieri's emphasis on the lack of orthography of the Maltese language, this was remedied by its subsequent standardization.

Delving further back in time is essential to grasp modern Maltese identity. Since medieval times, Sicilian Italian was the language used for all official discourse. From the early sixteenth century through the late eighteenth century, Malta was under the rule of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (or more commonly known as the Knights of Malta). It was during this time that the culture of the people of Malta became influenced by Latin traditions and customs and by the nineteenth century, Malta had a similar cultural makeup to neighboring Italy.24

Language was not, however, the only link pointing toward a common identity. The Roman Catholic religion was central to life in Malta, even to the point that the church was the center point of many villages.25 Since nearly every Maltese citizen went to church, there was a strong sense of community amongst the people. This communal aspect of Maltese life was accentuated by the fact that the islands are incredibly small. In this sort of environment, it was easy for political opinion, both nationalist and “Britisher” sentiments, to be disseminated amongst the population. Maltese nationalism expressed itself from a cultural standpoint and represented one half of the dichotomy of Maltese politics during the entirety of British rule. The essence of the growing Maltese identity–Roman Catholicism, Italian cultural heritage, and the native Maltese language–were at odds with their colonial rulers. The use of the Maltese language became a means for the people to express their unique national identity. Britain’s goal of the de-Italianization of Malta resulted in the emergence of their national identity through the expansion of the Maltese language. The peculiarity of this cannot be downplayed: in an effort to bring the people of Malta totally under their control, the British felt the need to rid the island of the Italian language and instead they promoted the English and Maltese languages. This is contrary to typical colonial practice which is often characterized by the suppression of native languages. It is worth considering that had the British not been so set on the erasure of Italian influence in Malta, perhaps the Maltese sense of national identity would not have developed, or at least would have taken longer to do so.

Maltese nationalist dissatisfaction with British rule also came from a less culturally related source. After the overthrow of French rule on the island, many people viewed the consequent British occupation as a mutual agreement between the British and Maltese people. Malta was, in fact, not conquered by Britain but ceded to them by the Maltese people.26 While they were allowed freedom of practicing Catholicism, they were denied any political rights for much of the duration of British rule. Certain freedoms were assured to Malta upon the cession but these freedoms were subsequently denied after British occupation. This was entirely due to the militaristic opportunity presented by Malta’s location in the Mediterranean as it related to Britain’s imperial interests in Egypt and India. This led to a dispute in Maltese political discourse between the civil rights of the people of Malta versus the military ambitions of the British. The argument of willful Maltese cession, known as Melitensium Amor, was countered by British arguments of militaristic value deeming Malta unique compared to other colonies that might enjoy expanded rights.27 The people of Malta felt insecure in their liberties under the British government so long as there remained a union between military and civil power. The governor of Malta was most often a British military official and the people felt he would not have their best interests in mind as a society. The best interests of Malta would only be considered insofar as they related to British imperialist and military interests. In the eyes of Maltese politicians, the basis of imperialism meant that the British government in Malta did not consider the people of Malta as a separate people but as inhabitants of a military fortress.