What do you think?
Rate this book
History, Rhetoric, and Proof
Historian Carlo Ginzburg uses the occasion of his Menachem Stern Lectureship to present a provocative and characteristically brilliant examination of the relation between rhetoric and historiography. In four lectures, based on a wide range of texts -- Aristotle's Poetics; humanist Lorenzo Valla's tract exposing the Donation of Constantine as a forgery; an early 18th-century Jesuit historical account purporting to record the diatribe of a Mariana Island native against Spanish rule; and Proust's commentary on Flaubert's style -- he demonstrates that rhetoric, if properly understood, is related not only to ornament but to historical understanding and truth. Ginzburg discovers a middle ground between the empiricist or positivist view of history, and the current postmodern tendency to regard any historical account as just one among an infinity of possible narratives, distinguished or measured not by the standard of truth, but by rhetorical skill. As a whole, these lectures stake out a position that both mediates and transcends warring factions in the current historiographical debate.
135 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1999
1 person is currently reading
160 people want to read
About the author
Carlo Ginzburg
77 books242 followersBorn in 1939, he is the son of of Italian-Ukranian translator Leone Ginzburg and Italian writer Natalia Ginzburg. Historian whose fields of interest range from the Italian Renaissance to early modern European History, with contributions in art history, literary studies, popular cultural beliefs, and the theory of historiography.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 16, 2018
A Mess in Need of an Editor
I should have been put off by the rambling nature of the first chapter in which the author wanders to and fro between Aristotle, Luther and Nietzche with other name dropping thrown in, the connection being Aristotle's Rhetoric, though there's an interesting mention of Thucydides' use of then current customs and of tombstones in his rhetoric to project backwards elements of the past. Chapter 2 concerns the “Donation of Constantine” a document that purported to transfer authority a third of the Roman Empire to the papacy and exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in the 1400s who used linguistic anachronisms in the text to prove his case. The tone picks up in Chapter 3 with a discussion of the value of using harangues to illustrate historic attitudes and context, the primary example an inflammatory speech against Spanish settlement given by a native Philippine noble Hurao, “recorded” but likely embellished by Le Gobien, a Jesuit.
In the final chapter, Professor Ginzburg returns to form with an analysis of the significance of blanks in Flaubert's Madame Bovary along with commentary by Proust, the sole point being that contemporary novels are a useful tool for contemplating the nature of an era.
The title promised an interesting discussion that wasn't fulfilled. Here and there are a few good points but the whole doesn't work well together. Thankfully the book at 103 pages, at least a third consisting of citations, is short. Not recommended.
I should have been put off by the rambling nature of the first chapter in which the author wanders to and fro between Aristotle, Luther and Nietzche with other name dropping thrown in, the connection being Aristotle's Rhetoric, though there's an interesting mention of Thucydides' use of then current customs and of tombstones in his rhetoric to project backwards elements of the past. Chapter 2 concerns the “Donation of Constantine” a document that purported to transfer authority a third of the Roman Empire to the papacy and exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in the 1400s who used linguistic anachronisms in the text to prove his case. The tone picks up in Chapter 3 with a discussion of the value of using harangues to illustrate historic attitudes and context, the primary example an inflammatory speech against Spanish settlement given by a native Philippine noble Hurao, “recorded” but likely embellished by Le Gobien, a Jesuit.
In the final chapter, Professor Ginzburg returns to form with an analysis of the significance of blanks in Flaubert's Madame Bovary along with commentary by Proust, the sole point being that contemporary novels are a useful tool for contemplating the nature of an era.
The title promised an interesting discussion that wasn't fulfilled. Here and there are a few good points but the whole doesn't work well together. Thankfully the book at 103 pages, at least a third consisting of citations, is short. Not recommended.
May 23, 2022
Gli storici hanno perso di vista la triangolazione storia-retorica-prova per focalizzarsi su un rapporto fra storia e retorica, perché si dà per scontato che retorica e prova siano due concetti antitetici che non possano entrare in contatto. Questa posizione nei confronti della storia deriva da un relativismo scettico che potremmo dividere in una sua versione più mite, più moderata e in una seconda versione decisamente e più feroce e radicale, entrambe queste versioni del relativismo scettico affondano le proprie radici nel Nietzsche di "Su verità e su menzogna in senso extra-morale".
La soluzione sarebbe tornare ad una concezione della retorica come quella che si dà nell'omonima opera di Aristotele, per poterla nuovamente affiancare alla prova.
Un metodo storico incredibile quello di Ginzburg, tradotto in oltre 20 lingue, un sistema critico incredibile. Splendido il capitolo sugli spazi bianchi ispirato da "L'educazione sentimentale" di Flaubert.
La soluzione sarebbe tornare ad una concezione della retorica come quella che si dà nell'omonima opera di Aristotele, per poterla nuovamente affiancare alla prova.
Un metodo storico incredibile quello di Ginzburg, tradotto in oltre 20 lingue, un sistema critico incredibile. Splendido il capitolo sugli spazi bianchi ispirato da "L'educazione sentimentale" di Flaubert.
August 10, 2023
succinct, engaging and interesting - eg on the harangue as a baroque genre
May 4, 2008
I have been in love with Mr. Gingzburg writings since I first had a glimpse of "The Cheese and the Worms" when I was still graduating from College. Because for the first time there was someone who could write History without letting his readers bored, a very common ability amongst Historians, I am afraid to say. So, when I saw this book was required for my Majoring test this year I smiled broadly: finally something I would truly feel pleasure reading and I was not mistaken. Again he surprises me teaching theory with a fluency often seen in Novelists. Each chapter brings well-known history facts as examples of how History is written nowadays, including how documents (when I say documents I am referring to the Annales and Nouvelle Histoire concept) should be read - something I am using very much since I deal with Jesuits letters - and how certain facts can be overshadowed or emphasized depending on the Historian wishes. My favorite chapter, of course, is the one where he mentions how to decipher a blank space in a document by analyzing one of Flaubert writings. A truly enchanted piece of work and a real inspirations for those like myself who have only started uncovering History’s grandeur.
January 6, 2016
For Chapter 1
p. 39-40 - "Proofs can be divided into 'artificial' and 'non-artificial.' Among the latter Aristotle mentions 'witnesses, tortures, contracts, and the like' a list that speaks (among other things) of a society that, like Athens in the fourth century B.C., heavily relied on written evidence.
p. 40 - continues on about enthymeme and epideictic rhetoric
"'The material of enthymemes,' Aristotle writes, 'is derived from four sources--likelihood, example, necessary sign, and sign.' The accuser is in a difficult situation: his conclusions can be easily rejected, in so far as they are related to what takes place 'in the majority of cases.' But, being based on a conclusion that is 'likely' and not 'necessary,' their confutation is only apparent. Even enthymemes based on examples and signs are related to the realm of likelihood. Only enthymemes based on necessary signs can lead to conclusions that are beyond refutation."
p. 50 - "Judges are concerned only with events leading to individual responsibilities, historians are not."
"The way in which these supposedly uninteresting facts [judiciary sources] can sometimes be transformed into 'events of general interest' does not concern us here."
p. 39-40 - "Proofs can be divided into 'artificial' and 'non-artificial.' Among the latter Aristotle mentions 'witnesses, tortures, contracts, and the like' a list that speaks (among other things) of a society that, like Athens in the fourth century B.C., heavily relied on written evidence.
p. 40 - continues on about enthymeme and epideictic rhetoric
"'The material of enthymemes,' Aristotle writes, 'is derived from four sources--likelihood, example, necessary sign, and sign.' The accuser is in a difficult situation: his conclusions can be easily rejected, in so far as they are related to what takes place 'in the majority of cases.' But, being based on a conclusion that is 'likely' and not 'necessary,' their confutation is only apparent. Even enthymemes based on examples and signs are related to the realm of likelihood. Only enthymemes based on necessary signs can lead to conclusions that are beyond refutation."
p. 50 - "Judges are concerned only with events leading to individual responsibilities, historians are not."
"The way in which these supposedly uninteresting facts [judiciary sources] can sometimes be transformed into 'events of general interest' does not concern us here."
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews