Rhetorical vs. Historical Discourse?

Abstract The status of Venetian relazioni has long been debated in historiography. Since Leopold von Ranke, relazioni have been read as „the perfect type of testimony“, while more recent interpretations have highlighted their complex rhetorical scope. Starting with a framing of the genre, this article focuses on a particular case study, namely the relazioni of the Venetian baili and the extraordinary ambassadors in the Ottoman Empire around the Cyprus War (1570–1573), with the aim of defining their rhetorical vs. historiographical function. Through a comparison with contemporary sources from the Venetian area, the skillful rhetorical construction of the texts is emphasised, testifying to an ideological function that goes beyond mere reporting. At the same time, the realistic and pragmatic perspective of the genre is highlighted in its capacity to delineate a lucid fresco of the relations between the Serenissima and the Sublime Porte. A multi-layered reading of the reports is thus proposed, which integrates their rhetorical and historiographical dimensions, and which identifies them, in their allusions to the internal Venetian debate in the post-Lepanto years, as an instrument of participation and of reflection on the part of the urban elite on the Venetian system of government.