"History, Rhetoric, Proof... the idea that historians need or can prove something is, in the eyes of many, an idea that has lost its necessity, and is perhaps even downright ridiculous. However, even those who feel uncomfortable in the face of the prevailing intellectual atmosphere, almost always believe that rhetoric and proof are not consistent. I, on the other hand, wish to show, first, that proof was considered an inseparable part of rhetoric in the past. Second, that this fact, which was self-evident in the past, and has been forgotten in the meantime, alludes to an image of the working methods of historians, including contemporary historians, which is much more realistic and complex than that reflected in contemporary fashion."
With these words, Carlo Ginzburg, one of the most innovative historians of our generation, opens his fascinating essay on the relationship between rhetoric and history. While looking originally at a wide variety of texts belonging to different periods, cultures and types, Ginzburg seeks to show that rhetoric, if the compromise is understood correctly, concerns not only the style of the historian, but a garden for his pursuit of proof and historical truth.
