Cristiano Barbieri

The article proposes a comparison between Edgar Zilsel and Herbert Butterfield, two of the most important historians of science of the twentieth century. After outlining the characteristics of the main historiographical currents, the paper examines the convergences and differences between the work of the Austrian scholar and that of the English historian. Although both severely criticized premodern culture and legitimized the idea of progress, Zilsel and Butterfield offered diametrically opposed interpretations of the Scientific Revolution. Against Butterfield’s historiographical hypothesis, which understands the origin of science as a response to high intellectual needs without providing a valid explanation for the genesis of the ‘scientific need,’ the essay counterposes Zilsel’s perspec- tive, which interpreted the Scientific Revolution as an unintentional effect due to the coincidence of three factors: the crisis of Aristotelianism, the decline of feudalism, and the affirmation of the capitalist economy.

This article proposes a critique of the concept of the philosophy of history, referencing both the circular model (Oswald Spengler) and the progressivist model (Antonio Labriola). It then demonstrates that these two opposing conceptions are founded upon the indemonstrable premise of historical necessity. The essay supplements this epistemological critique with an eth- ical-political critique, utilizing an analysis of Arthur Koestler’s novel, to il- lustrate the terrible consequences resulting from a society governed by faith in the necessity of history. The impossibility of verifying historical necessity and the possibility that this premise may legitimize a violent regime (such as the one described by Koestler) suggest a disavowal of the philosophy of history without, however, abandoning historical consciousness which is necessary to understand current society.

Edgar Zilsel is a central figure in 20th-century culture. His works, which continue to influence contemporary research, primarily concern the history, philosophy and sociology of science. This is the first italian critical study to retrace the life and work of the Viennese Jewish thinker. Foreword by Prof. Paolo Savoia (University of Bologna), presentation for the Italian readers by Prof. Henrique Leitão (University of Lisbon). This book was presented at the University of Vienna (October 2025) and at the University of Ljubljana (may 2026).

The present contribution tries to clarify the methodological convergences between Leo Strauss and Carlo Ginzburg who, despite living in different contexts and eras, developed an epistemology of historical research that assigns great importance to the hidden signs. The ‘Evidential Paradigm’, consisting in the formulation of retrospective prophecies based on unnoticeable details, has allowed Ginzburg to propose an original interpretation of one of Freud’s most important clinical cases. The paper aims to show how the ‘Evidential Paradigm’ is involved in Strauss’ hermeneutics, which - relying on omissions, repetitions and contradictions in the texts - has attempted to rewrite the history of political thought to discover the esoteric teaching of political writings.

The article proposes a comparison between Thomas Hobbes and René Girard, drawing extensively on critical literature. Two authors who – despite having lived in different eras and having addressed different problems – deeply reasoned about the relationship between religion and violence. This contribution stems from the idea that the problem of the relationship between religion and violence is older than the tragic events of 11th September 2001. While Hobbes disciplines the relationship between violence and religion in the name of nihilism and relativism, Girard believes that this problem can only be solved by turning to Jesus Christ, whose destituent power has destroyed the mythological narrative of violence. Against Hobbesian political theology, which dismisses the complexity of Christianity, the essay opposes the Girardian perspective, which brings back to attention the non-violent message of the Gospels.