When History Gets Personal; How an Italian Scholar Turned Advocate in a Terrorist Case

Crimes, investigations, evidence and trials have played a central role in the life and work of Carlo Ginzburg, considered the pre-eminent Italian historian of his generation.

Teasing meaning from Inquisitorial records of the 16th century, the 61-year-old Mr. Ginzburg, who has taught at the University of California at Los Angeles for 12 years, reconstructed the mental world of an Italian miller in his book ''The Cheese and the Worms.'' It is a classic work that, along with Natalie Zemon Davis's ''Return of Martin Guerre,'' helped create the genre of ''microhistory,'' an attempt to examine historical themes through seemingly small individual episodes. Because of its seminal importance, ''The Cheese and the Worms'' is the subject of a symposium that the American Historical Society is holding this year to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original publication.

Over the years, Mr. Ginzburg has acted as historical detective in essays titled ''Clues,'' ''History, Rhetoric and Proof'' and ''Unus Testis (The Single Witness)''; written books on the trials and persecution of lepers, witches and Jews; and reflected on intellectual sleuths from Sherlock Holmes to Freud.

But never has the blurry line between historian and criminal investigator touched Mr. Ginzburg as directly as in ''The Judge and the Historian,'' his latest work to be translated into English, in which he comes to the defense of a close personal friend convicted of murder.

Involving one of the most important terrorist killings in recent Italian history, the dispute has become a kind of contemporary Dreyfus affair. Mr. Ginzburg makes his personal stake in the case evident from the beginning of the book: ''I have known Adriano Sofri for more than 30 years. He is one of my closest friends. . . . I am certain that the accusation is groundless.''

The case, which saw its latest twist just this week, is itself a mystery within a mystery, one that could shed light on Italian life during the last 30 years. And Mr. Ginzburg uses it as a chance to reflect on the roles of judges and historians and the differences between historical and legal forms of proof.