This book is practically unreadable, and is an excellent argument against "us[ing] history as a series of natural experiments to raise the level of coThis book is practically unreadable, and is an excellent argument against "us[ing] history as a series of natural experiments to raise the level of complexity through which to understand our move into a global age" (404). Oversimplifying and distorting historical fact does not add complexity to anything; it makes me seriously question the validity of your argument even if it is otherwise airtight (and I don't think it is to begin with).
It's fine so long as you remember that this guy isn't a historian. Which is pretty hard to forget, honestly, given how poor his grasp of Roman/Church It's fine so long as you remember that this guy isn't a historian. Which is pretty hard to forget, honestly, given how poor his grasp of Roman/Church history is....more
Not entirely accurate since I only read the first half, but wow, this book is pretty bad: poorly argued, contradictory, and full of overwrought and deNot entirely accurate since I only read the first half, but wow, this book is pretty bad: poorly argued, contradictory, and full of overwrought and deliberately obfuscatory prose....more
Very engaging synthesis, but not without problems:
- synthetic reading of the sources obviates the possibility for in-depth discussion of any of the thVery engaging synthesis, but not without problems:
- synthetic reading of the sources obviates the possibility for in-depth discussion of any of the thematic issues raised in each chapter; instead, each chapter contributes to an overall synthetic argument about the disjointed nature of early modern justice, which is already well known;
- poorly sourced, so it's not possible to trace the broader discussions that she alludes to;
- poorly defined chronology: claims to begin in 1500, but little discussion of anything before the 1540s (possibly the nature of the sources -- the Governor's tribunal's records only go back to 1542, and of course the Holy Office was only established in that year); never really explained how the period up to 1750 hangs together beyond the fact that it's all (arguably) "early modern";
- alludes to some mythologizing of the contrast between justice in decadent, baroque Rome and justice in rational, enlightened somewhere-else, but doesn't actually go anywhere with it.
Basically, it contained some really cool case studies but little else of any substance....more
This book is pretty terrible in terms of both argument (that the Sack of Rome in 1527 led to a new "national" consciousness among Italians -- are you This book is pretty terrible in terms of both argument (that the Sack of Rome in 1527 led to a new "national" consciousness among Italians -- are you joking) and execution, being poorly researched and betraying a really very facile understanding of both Roman and peninsular politics in the early 16th century.
But maybe it will get better the more I read. :|...more
Book of conference papers reads like a book of conference papers. Very conversational and inconclusive, and ultimately not terribly useful or interestBook of conference papers reads like a book of conference papers. Very conversational and inconclusive, and ultimately not terribly useful or interesting.
Also, I don't understand why this title is in caps when it's not even worth the excitement....more
Loading...
