In the matter of southern Italian vs. northern Italian ART - Benedetto Croce is called to the stand.
In the matter of southern Italian vs. northern Italian ART - Benedetto Croce is called to the stand.
(March 4, 2010)
"The Veiled Christ" by Giuseppe Sanmartino
A second article in an historiographic series about “Southern Question” history: With the large volume of misinformation produced by media and academicians about southern Italy and Sicily, Italian Americans have to learn to read history critically if they are going to know and understand the land of their progeneration.
Science lumbers along one verified proposition and validated inference at a time.
Americans of southern Italian descent wishing to study the history of their progeneration before the Ellis Island/Little Italy years are at a disadvantage. There are few Italian Americans with graduate degrees, and very few with PhDs in Italian or Italian American history.1 Accordingly, Italian American students, having little guidance from Italian American historians, must develop a healthy sense of Socratic/Cartesian critical thinking skills, when reading the history of the Italian South.
Specifically, Americans of Italian descent must not assume that histories about our ancestral lands, albeit written in a good scholarly format (i.e. footnotes, bibliographies, etc.) by historians with impressive credentials, are necessarily accurate descriptions and valid explanations of our heritage. Regardless of an historian’s credentials, a history book must stand the test of rigorous critical examination before it is embraced as an accurate rendition of past realities.
This is the second article in a series about the historiography (methods) and questionable histories of southern Italy and Sicily. The first article described the Critical Method and demonstrated how it can be used to show fallacies in works such as Silvana Patriarca’s article “How Many Italies? Representing the South in Official Statistics” (see: “Southern Question” Reality or Representations: “Two Roads to the Past”
Introduction
“Preponderance of Evidence” and “Reasonable Doubt.”
Readers of history generally, and the history of southern Italy and Sicily most especially, must learn to read critically; they must develop the mindset of a juror in a court trial. Jurors never know with absolute certainty if the person charged with an offense in fact committed the offense. Absolute certainty can only come from direct observation. Not having observed the offense, they must make an inference (logical deduction) about the event. The criteria jurors use for reaching their decisions are called “clear and convincing preponderance of evidence ” (civil trials) and “beyond reasonable doubt” (criminal trials). Similarly students of history must use the same criteria when making inferences about the past.
Criminal events or civil rights violations are historic events. For the jury, the crime/violation occurred in the past. It’s history! Thus, jurors, de facto, are acting as historians. They are making judgments (logical inferences) about events that occurred in the past which they did not witnessed.
Like jurors, historians cannot be absolutely certain that the alleged past event actually occurred because they did not actually witness the event. Further, even if the event did in fact occur, there is no certainty about the specific characteristics of the event (e.g. who did what to whom, were, when and why?).
Jurors and historians make logical deductions about past events; they reach conclusions about past events based on evidence. However, the evidence is neither conclusive nor indubitable. The criteria both jurors and historians use to arrive at their conclusions are called, in abbreviated legal parlance, “preponderance of evidence” and “reasonable doubt.”
However, unlike jurors, for readers of history books, evidence is not presented to them in a systematically orderly fashion governed by the rules of evidence and trial procedures. And, unlike jurors, readers don’t have counter arguments presented by opposing attorneys, nor is there a judge to control the presentation and make judgments about the relevance of the evidence. The readers must cross-examine the evidentiary presentation themselves. The reader is the opposing council, judge and jury in a history presentation. Finally, the reader, like a juror, draws conclusions based on the “preponderance of evidence” presented and “reasonable doubt.”
Expert Witnesses
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
For example, consider the parallel use of expert witnesses in a jury trial and in a history book. Both the juror in a trial and the reader of a history book must always keep in mind the logical fallacy “Appeal to Authority”. This is the fallacy of accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. For example:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Just because a person is an authority, it does not logically follow that what they say is necessarily true. In short, even experts can be wrong or bias. In a trial, one lawyer will call an ‘expert’ to testify, and the opposing lawyer will ‘cross-examine’ the expert to see if in fact what the expert says is true. The opposing lawyer may also call his own expert to cast doubt on the previous experts testimony. Again, just because an expert says something is true, it is not necessarily true.
Similarly, readers of history texts must be on guard of committing the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. This is to say, just because the person who wrote the book or article is an expert, it does not logically follow that what they wrote is true. If the writer has not effectively ‘cross-examined’ his virtual witnesses, then the reader must act as the opposing lawyer in a trial and ‘cross examine’ them. Readers must raise questions in their own minds about the truth or falsity of what they read, and they must consult other experts (i.e. other history books) to see if they agree or disagree with the first.
The following hypothetical scenario will illustrate the trial nature of an historical enquiry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the matter of southern Italian art vs. northern Italian art
Benedetto Croce is called to give expert testimony
Attorney for the South (AFS):
Prof. Croce would you consider yourself an expert (an authority) on the art of Italy.
Croce: Yes, of course. I have written many scholarly books and articles on the subject of Italian art and many other topics on history and philosophy. My works have been translated into many languages. My authoritativeness is not limited to art – as you probably know. Would you like me to read my bibliography? I brought a copy? (reaching into his pocket and smiling proudly at the jury)
AFS: No. No. That will not be necessary. Thank you. The South will
stipulate to your impressive credentials.
stipulate to your impressive credentials.
AFS: Perhaps you would explain to the jury: What makes you or anyone for that matter an authority? Who or what determines your authoritativeness? What is the measure of authoritativeness? Is it just publishing books? More books equal more authority?
Croce: No! No! Anyone can publish a book. To be an authority you have to be recognized by others as an authority. My books are cited in hundreds, perhaps thousands of footnotes and bibliographies by scholars in many fields. Renowned aesthetic scholars such as R. C. Collingwood and John Dewey have acknowledge being influenced by my work.
AFS: By scholars, you mean other authorities?
Croce: Well yes. For example, recently Gabriella Gribaudi, Professor of Contemporary History and Director of the Dept. of Sociology at the University of Naples, who has done very authoritative work on the history of the Italian south quoted me authoritatively in her article “Images of the South” which appeared with other authoritative articles in the book “Italian Cultural Studies: An Introduction” which was authoritatively edited by David Forgacs and Rovert Lumely, and was published by the very authoritative publishing house Oxford University Press.
AFS: (Turning to the jury dramatically with his hand on his forehead) MAMA MIA! All of these authorities! I’m getting confused.
If I may, let me summarize: You are an authority because other authorities that write authoritative books published by authoritative publishing houses say you are an authority. Is that correct?
Croce: Well not completely. After all I am a scholar, philosopher and historian so I know what I’m talking about. That’s the real reason I’m an authority. I’m a person of knowledge!
AFS: Would you give us an example of your knowledge of the art of southern Italy and how it compares with the North.
Croce: Well for example, Prof. Gribaudi quoted me approvingly in
support of her thesis in the article I mentioned. I wrote:
support of her thesis in the article I mentioned. I wrote:
“It has been said that ' Italy ends at the Garigliano'…and such is the opinion of travelers and tourists coming from the northern and central regions, who find none of the glorious monuments of Italian history or the works of a famous school of art such as they have admired elsewhere. Beside the masterpieces of Tuscan, Lombard, and Venetian artists that were created or brought here by chance, they find, for the most part, secondary works,ostentatious rather than of intrinsic worth.”
AFS: So you are saying as an authority, that the art of the south is far inferior to the art of the North - your words: “secondary and ostentatious rather than of intrinsic worth”, and Prof. Gribaudi who is also an authority agrees with you?
Croce: Yes. She wrote:
“In 1860, the lands belonging to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies which became part of the unified nation were in a weak position and were obliged to measure themselves against cultural…models based on profoundly different societies…nineteenth-century Italy sought the roots of a possible national identity in the history of the medieval city-states and the Renaissance, with its art, its great men…Naturally, the South was excluded from this history and the models to which it appealed. The classical ideal expressed by the Florence of the Medici constituted a positive ideal for the nation and one which every community in Italy had to measure up to.
AFS: Both you and Prof. Gribaudi are authorities on the art of Italy and agree that the art of the South is inferior to the North. Is that correct?
Croce: Well it’s not JUST we two. It is a generally accepted fact that the art of the South is inferior to the North.
AFS: Ah, Yes you did mention “travelers and tourist (turning to the jury and with great emphasis) COMING FROM THE NORTH!
Are there any southern authorities who think the art of the South is inferior to the North?
Croce: (with a big grin turning to the jury) “But of course sir, both Prof. Gribaudi and I are Neopolitians. I’m from Naples and she teaches at the University of Naples.
AFS: Being from Naples and an art authority, I assume you are familiar with “Cappella Sanseveroi”?
Croce: (Pregnant pause – shifts in his chair and quietly responds) Yes.
AFS: Sorry could you speak up so the jury can hear. I believe you said Yes. (Croce nods in agreement)
AFS: Are you familiar with marble sculpture “The Veiled Christ”?
Croce: (another weak) Yes.
AFS: Would that piece be considered… what’s the world you used in Prof. Gribaudi’s quote…oh yes…a “masterpiece” or is it, again your words “ a secondary work, ostentatious rather than of intrinsic worth?
Croce: It is a significant work of art .
AFS: Was this…again in your words quoted by Prof. Gribaudi… “ a masterpiece by Tuscan, Lombard, or Venetian artists that was brought here by chance…?”
Croce: No.
AFS: You know who the artist was that created this “masterpiece” and where he is from?
Croce: Yes. Yes, of course. Giuseppe Sanmartino created it, and he is from Naples.
AFS: Would you explain why “The Veiled Christ” would be considered inferior to the work “of…say… what’s his name…Michael…I have it here in my notes…the fellow who carved horns on Moses’ head and the hand of David bigger than his head…Michael Angel…no, I’m sorry…Michelangelo? Or, for that matter the other northern sculpture Donitello who carved the, how should I say it… the pixie David…why would “The Veiled Christ” by Neapolitan artist Giuseppe Sanmartino by considered inferior to these northern works?
Explain, if you would, in terms of your authoritative aesthetic philosophy, why “The Veiled Christ” would be considered in your words “a secondary work, ostentatious with no intrinsic worth”; in short inferior to the marble carvings of those two northerners or any other northern Renaissance sculpture for that matter.
Croce: (unresponsive)
AFS: How about some other works of Sanmartino: “Virginity”, “Reward”, “Charity” and “Fortitude” or the “High Alter”; could you explain why they are inferior.
Croce: (aroused from his dogmatic slumber) That is just one artist. We are talking about art in general.
AFS: We? By we you mean you and Prof. Gribaudi?
Croce: Yes and many others.
AFS: Others? Oh yes, I keep forgetting: travelers and tourist from the North who think the art of the South is inferior to the North as you are quoted authoritatively by the authoritative Prof. Gribaudi – I assume.
But, let’s move on to another area of art and the South.
As an authority on Italian art, are you familiar with the architecture of Sicily?
Croce: (crossing and recrossing his legs – obviously uncomfortable and showing signs of aggravation – he is not use to this type of questioning. Generally he is adored and all he has to do is pontificate.) Yes.
AFS: How about the Sicilian Romanesque, Baroque or neo-classical architecture? Would you explain why those architecture styles as executed by Sicilian architects are, again in your words, “secondary works, ostentatious with no intrinsic worth”, and inferior to northern architecture? Or, the frescos that cover the walls and ceilings of the structures, the renowned staircases and gardens of the palazzi. Consider if you will, specifically the works of Andrea Giganti such as Palzzo Bonagia. And, please don’t leave out the denigration of Sicily's cathedrals. Be specific.
Croce: In my opinion…
AFS: Excuse me Professor, but you say in your opinion. Is that what this comes down to – your opinion that southern art is inferior to the north? Are there no objective criteria used to make the judgment?
Croce: Of course there are objective judgments. That’s why I’m considered an authority. I know the difference between superior and inferior art. That’s why people read and quote my books. (showing signs of extreme agitation)
AFS: Well then…would you give us…say…three objective criteria that you use to determine the inferiority of southern art?
Croce: You obviously know nothing about art. Aesthetic criteria are not printed on a checklist. One has to study the works in great detail and then see the difference.
AFS: In short, you cannot tell us why the art of southern Italy is inferior to the North. You can only give us your subjective opinion. Finally Professor, if I may, I would like to consider the literary arts.
Croce: (he puffs up) Does anyone doubt the superiority of northern Tuscan literature?
AFS: What about the sonnet?
Croce: Oh really?!? The best you can do is recall that Sicilian poets invented the sonnet in the 13th century. Literature has a long history after that.
AFS: Verismo?
Croce: Excuse me?
AFS: Verismo – are you familiar with the term?
Croce: (somewhat subduded) Of course.
AFS: Region, time, writer…?
Croce: I take your meaning.
AFS: Indeed!
Summing up Professor: If one takes into consideration the preponderance of all the art of the respective regions (north and south), as a professor of philosophy would you say that it is inconceivable to at least have some “reasonable doubts” about the alleged superiority of northern art?
Would a person who entertained such doubts be considered unreasonable or even irrational? Again, speaking as a professor of philosophy steeped as you are in logic and theory of knowledge is it impossible for an authority to be…oh how shall I say it… wrong!
Croce: ……
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above scenario is intended to dramatize the concepts of the “appeal to authority” fallacy, “preponderance of evidence”, “reasonable doubt” and how they apply to the study of history. Just because authorities say it’s true, it’s not necessarily true. All of the relevant evidence available (preponderance) must be taken into consideration and ultimately the highest degree of certainty about conclusions about the past that can be achieved is reasonable doubt.
The next article of this series will critique Professor Gribaudi’s article “Images of the South” in those terms; but, not in the above dramatic form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 According to US Census data, only 12 percent of Italian Americans have attained an education level higher than a Bachelors degree. If one factors out from that 12 percent medical doctors, lawyers, public school teachers, MBAs, PhDs in math, science, social sciences, languages, literature and history other than Italian or Italian American; we are left with very few Italian American historians with specialties in Italian or Italian American history. In short, from whom are Italian American students learning their history? Certainly not other Italian Americans. For details on Italian American education census data, please see: “Italian Americans by the Numbers – Education: Who will educate our children? – Table II”
http://www.i-italy.org/bloggers/10718/italian-americans-numbers-education-who-will-educate-our-children
DISCLAIMER: Posts published in i-Italy are intended to stimulate a debate in the Italian and Italian-American Community and sometimes deal with controversial issues. The Editors are not responsible for, nor necessarily in agreement with the views presented by individual contributors.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - RIPRODUZIONE VIETATA.This work may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.
Questo lavoro non può essere riprodotto, in tutto o in parte, senza permesso scritto.
Add a comment
-
This Blog
-
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Most Commented
