A dazzling example of the pleasure of research
Il Foglio
Ginzburg calls for an intricate reading of Machiavelli. He points out that the link between the author of <i>The Prince</i> and the author of the <i>Provincial Letters</i> is justified by the fact that both pertain to the broad constellation of political theology informed by the exception, the miracle, the unique case imposed on the norm
Il Manifesto
A treasure hunt in historical sources, forgeries and the reception of texts
Avvenire
One of world's premier historians. A born detective.
New York Times
Really quite brilliant
- Jan Machielsen, Times Literary Supplement (for Old Thiess, a Livonian Werewolf)
In fact, both. Ginzburg approaches Machiavelli's work from the perspective of casuistry, or case-based ethical reasoning. For as Machiavelli indicated through his repeated use of the adverb nondimanco ("nevertheless"), there is an exception to every rule. Such a perspective may seem to echo the traditional image of Machiavelli as a cynical, "machiavellian" thinker. But a close analysis of Machiavelli the reader, as well as of the ways in which some of Machiavelli's most perceptive readers read his work, throws a different light on Machiavelli the writer. The same hermeneutic strategy inspires the essays on the Provinciales, Pascal's ferocious attack against Jesuitical casuistry.
Casuistry vs anti-casuistry; Machiavelli's secular attitude towards religion vs Pascal's deep religiosity. We are confronted, apparently, with two completely different worlds. But Pascal read Machiavelli, and reflected deeply upon his work. A belated, contemporary echo of this reading can unveil the complex relationship between Machiavelli and Pascal - their divergences as well as their unexpected convergences.