Carlo Ginzburg (1939–2026): Between Innovation and Controversy

The death of Carlo Ginzburg on 17 June 2026 marks the disappearance of one of the most influential and widely discussed historians of the last half-century. Few scholars of early modern Europe have enjoyed comparable international visibility, and even fewer have generated such extensive debate across the fields of history, anthropology, literary studies, and cultural studies.

Born in Turin on 15 April 1939, Ginzburg was the son of the anti-fascist intellectual Leone Ginzburg and the writer Natalia Ginzburg. He studied at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, where he came under the influence of Delio Cantimori, one of the most important Italian historians of heresy and religious dissent. After teaching at the University of Bologna, he moved to the United States, holding the Chair of Italian Renaissance History at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) from 1988 to 2006. He later returned to Pisa, where he taught History of European Cultures at the Scuola Normale Superiore and was subsequently appointed Professor Emeritus.

Ginzburg’s research focused primarily on the cultural and religious history of early modern Europe, particularly the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His work explored the beliefs, mentalities, and intellectual horizons of ordinary people, often through the close examination of inquisitorial records and judicial archives. In doing so, he helped establish an approach that sought to recover the voices of individuals who had traditionally remained on the margins of historical narratives.

His name became closely associated with Microhistory, one of the most innovative historiographical currents to emerge in post-war Italy. Although the label never fully captured the complexity of his scholarship, works such as Il formaggio e i vermi (The Cheese and the Worms, 1976) became emblematic of a method that used a single individual or small community to illuminate broader cultural processes. The book, centred on the Friulian miller Menocchio and his trial before the Roman Inquisition, achieved extraordinary international success and remains one of the most widely read works of historical scholarship ever written by an Italian historian.

Yet Ginzburg’s career was also marked by controversy. His interpretative boldness, admired by many readers, attracted criticism from numerous specialists. Several historians argued that some of his reconstructions relied excessively on conjecture and analogical reasoning, occasionally stretching the available evidence beyond what the sources could securely sustain. Discussing Ginzburg’s influential studies on the Friulian benandanti, Giovanni Romeo observed that a certain degree of “forcing” of the documentation was evident. Likewise, Dominick LaCapra famously remarked that The Cheese and the Worms appeared to reveal less the worldview of a sixteenth-century miller than that of a twentieth-century historian.

Similar criticisms resurfaced in later scholarly debates. During the controversy surrounding Ariel Toaff’s Pasque di Sangue (Bloody Passovers, 2007), Ginzburg emerged as one of the book’s strongest critics. In response, medieval historian Franco Cardini questioned whether some of the methodological shortcomings identified by Ginzburg in Toaff’s work might also be found in aspects of Ginzburg’s own scholarship, particularly in his use of the so-called “evidential paradigm” (paradigma indiziario).

Beyond his publications, Ginzburg played an important role in promoting access to archival sources. In 1979 he addressed a public appeal to Pope John Paul II advocating the opening of the archives of the former Holy Office to scholars. Although the request initially went unanswered, the eventual opening of the archives in 1998 was widely regarded as part of a broader process to which Ginzburg had contributed.

His public interventions occasionally extended beyond academic history. Particularly notable was his defence of his longtime friend Adriano Sofri. In Il giudice e lo storico (The Judge and the Historian, 1991), Ginzburg examined the judicial proceedings against Sofri and drew provocative parallels between modern legal practices and the procedures employed during early modern witchcraft trials. The book generated considerable debate and demonstrated how closely Ginzburg linked historical inquiry to contemporary public concerns.

Whether one views his work as a model of historical imagination or as an example of interpretative overreach, there can be little doubt about its impact. Carlo Ginzburg transformed the study of popular culture, religious dissent, witchcraft, and inquisitorial repression. He inspired generations of historians to look beyond official narratives and to search for meaning in fragmentary traces, marginal voices, and seemingly insignificant details. His books will continue to be read, discussed, admired, and criticized—perhaps the clearest sign of a lasting scholarly legacy.

For further reading in our Ereticopedia: readers may consult the entry specifically devoted to Carlo Ginzburg, as well as on Menocchio, Benandanti, Roman Inquisition, Delio Cantimori, Adriano Prosperi, and related topics concerning heresy, religious dissent, and inquisitorial practices in early modern Europe.