What do you think?
Rate this book
Clues, Myths and the Historical Method
"In the diversity of methods and objects of analysis it offers, Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method offers a fresh perspective on this Italian historian who has become such an essential point of reference in many domains of cultural study today." -- Dana Polan, Camera Obscura.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
28 people are currently reading
829 people want to read
About the author
Carlo Ginzburg
71 books245 followersBorn in 1939, he is the son of of Italian-Ukranian translator Leone Ginzburg and Italian writer Natalia Ginzburg. Historian whose fields of interest range from the Italian Renaissance to early modern European History, with contributions in art history, literary studies, popular cultural beliefs, and the theory of historiography.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
November 30, 2023
Eight essays that provide insight into Carlo Ginzburg's own view on historical research. Ginzburg (° 1939) is the father of microhistory, the study of seemingly small details with the goal of revealing the bigger picture. Some of the essays in this collection give an idea of how he does this, for example in a brilliant analysis of a witch trial in the Italian city of Modena in 1519 in which he shows how 'orthodox' and 'diabolical' faith actually betray the same mindset. In some essays Ginzburg writes in a very theoretical way and his argument becomes very difficult to follow. More in my historical account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Read
March 5, 2025“God is in the detail”, is not a statement invented by Carlo Ginzburg, but it does characterize the work of this father of microhistory. Ginzburg uses the quote (from Aby Warburg) in his first essay. Personally, I think that this collection of articles does not add much to his work, you might be better off reading his concrete studies themselves (including the most famous: The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller).
The essay 'Clues' particularly appealed to me. In it he compares the work of a historian with that of a detective or a doctor, both of which proceed on traces or symptoms, a chaotic multitude of 'clues' from which 'order' is created. Clinzburg therefore makes a clear distinction with the natural sciences, initiated by Galileo. Historiography par excellence still works very differently, despite the rapprochement with the social sciences: “History has remained a social science sui generis, forever tied to the concrete. Even if the historian is sometimes obliged to refer back, explicitly or implicitly, to a sequence of comparable phenomena, the cognitive strategy, as well as the codes by which he expresses himself, remain intrinsically individualizing (although the individual case may be a social group or an entire society). In this respect the historian is like the physician who uses nosographical tables to analyze the specific sickness in a patient. As with the physician's, historical knowledge is indirect, presumptive, conjectural.”
And for Ginzburg, this is where a skill comes into play that he calls 'intuition', a bit of a strange term (he himself speaks of 'low intuition'), a skill used to make sense of a multitude of small details: “This “low intuition” is based on the senses (though it skirts them) and as such has nothing to do with the suprasensible intuition of the various nineteenth- and twentieth-century irrationalisms. It can be found throughout the entire world, with no limits of geography, history, ethnicity, sex, or class—and thus, it is far removed from higher forms of knowledge which are the privileged property of an elite few. It is the property of the Bangladeshi, their knowledge having been expropriated by Sir William Herschel; or hunters; or sailors; of women. It binds the human animal closely to other animal species.”
In my opinion, what Ginzburg here describes largely represents the classic concept of 'heuristics', a standard term in historical research, a concept that disregards the epistemological context it works in. In other words: he did not invent really new things, but it is good that he emphasizes the unique character of historical research, and that it doesn't work in a void.
The essay 'Clues' particularly appealed to me. In it he compares the work of a historian with that of a detective or a doctor, both of which proceed on traces or symptoms, a chaotic multitude of 'clues' from which 'order' is created. Clinzburg therefore makes a clear distinction with the natural sciences, initiated by Galileo. Historiography par excellence still works very differently, despite the rapprochement with the social sciences: “History has remained a social science sui generis, forever tied to the concrete. Even if the historian is sometimes obliged to refer back, explicitly or implicitly, to a sequence of comparable phenomena, the cognitive strategy, as well as the codes by which he expresses himself, remain intrinsically individualizing (although the individual case may be a social group or an entire society). In this respect the historian is like the physician who uses nosographical tables to analyze the specific sickness in a patient. As with the physician's, historical knowledge is indirect, presumptive, conjectural.”
And for Ginzburg, this is where a skill comes into play that he calls 'intuition', a bit of a strange term (he himself speaks of 'low intuition'), a skill used to make sense of a multitude of small details: “This “low intuition” is based on the senses (though it skirts them) and as such has nothing to do with the suprasensible intuition of the various nineteenth- and twentieth-century irrationalisms. It can be found throughout the entire world, with no limits of geography, history, ethnicity, sex, or class—and thus, it is far removed from higher forms of knowledge which are the privileged property of an elite few. It is the property of the Bangladeshi, their knowledge having been expropriated by Sir William Herschel; or hunters; or sailors; of women. It binds the human animal closely to other animal species.”
In my opinion, what Ginzburg here describes largely represents the classic concept of 'heuristics', a standard term in historical research, a concept that disregards the epistemological context it works in. In other words: he did not invent really new things, but it is good that he emphasizes the unique character of historical research, and that it doesn't work in a void.
March 31, 2022
Ginzburg traces the emergence of an epistemological paradigm, which he references as the conjectural paradigm. This paradigm became the dominant form of knowledge towards the end of the 19th century. By examining the history of western medicine, crime identification, and art valuation, Ginzburg answers the question that has been pondering me for a long time in my undergrad study: how much do intuition and concreteness play in knowledge acquisition?
1. Definition of conjectural paradigm.
Ginzburg starts with the jobs of detectives, art appraisals, and psychoanalysts who conduct inductive reasoning.
- "In each case, infinitesimal traces permit the comprehension of a deeper, otherwise unattainable reality: traces -more precisely, symptoms (in the case of Freud), clues (in the case of Sherlock Holmes), pictorial marks (in the case of Morelli)."
To put into human words(or my understanding may be wrong), inductive reasoning means that people find the general truth by tracing the tiniest and even marginalized details. And after they eliminate all the false hypotheses, they reach the ultimate conclusion. For example, Sherlock Holmes always solves the crimes by first observing some random marks the criminals leave on-site and then finding the truth based on those details.
2. The history of conjectural paradigm
Stage 1: No difference between conjectural paradigm and scientific paradigm
Ginzburg gives the example of hunting, the invention of language, art valuation in the 16/17th century, and divination to trace the history of conjectural paradigm. In his opinion, early science develops through inductive reasoning. He proposes an exciting point: the process of converting thoughts into words parallels that of science. Language is a very intuitive expression. When people put their observations and reactions in their daily life into language, they convert something very specific into an abstract form. This conversion is precisely what inductive reasoning is and what science in early human history does.
Language, in other words, is both conjectural reasoning and science. It is fair to say that at some point in history, the conjectural paradigm is the same as the scientific paradigm---what people feel is the ultimate truth.
Stage 2: Galileo's time: Conjectural paradigm diverges from the scientific paradigm
With the development/emergence of scientific experiments, the conjectural paradigm diverges from the scientific paradigm. Scientists all try to control variables in their experiments to have the most subjective results. The more personalized the case is, the less scientific it is.
Stage 3: Solve the conflicts between conjectural paradigm and scientific paradigm
How should we solve the conflicts between the individual and the universal? There are two solutions: #1, we scientize everything. Or #2, we develop a new conjectural paradigm in which individual thoughts are constructed on a scientific and universal ground.
I will expand on method #2, which is my favorite part of the book.
Ginzburg thinks that while science codified and eliminated the "personalized" and "abnormal" conditions, these individualized cases help to give a more accurate definition of "normal."
It is pretty hard to understand his argument here, and I will put it into human words based on my understanding. Let's have the example of dating. When we date someone who is insane, we consider them "abnormal." However, the existence of those people expands our understanding of relationships. And that new understanding is closer to reality.
Quoting from Ginzburg,
- "Knowledge of this sort in each instance was richer than any written codification; it was learned not from books but the living voice, from gestures, and glances; it was based on subtleties impossible to formalize, which often could not even be translated into words; it constituted the patrimony, partly unitary, partly diversified if men and women from all social class."
- "These insights were bound by a subtle relationship; they had all originated in concrete experience. The force behind this knowledge resided in this concreteness, but so did its initiation- the ability to use the powerful and terrible weapon of abstraction."
Ginzburg thinks a divergence exists between the very early stage science, such as divine/hunting, and modern science. The former is too individualized and cannot be applied to the general public. At the same time, the latter eliminates many important, localized, and complex individual details. The divergence between the "native" and "modern" needs to be resolved. He gives the example of the encyclopedia by Denis Diderot as a great attempt to resolve the divergence.
Stage 4: applications of conjectural paradigm
It is pretty boring (I give up taking notes here). I expect him to cover more on the relationship between knowledge and power, such as defending individual human rights in the knowledge acquiring process from a historical epistemological perspective. However, Ginzburg is quite basic and speaks about ethics. He identifies the relationship between knowledge and power and talks about examples such as fingerprint identifications.
Overall, for good reasons, Ginzburg is a must-read figure in terms of epistemology. There has continuously been biasing among people that literature has no epistemology----which I don't see this way. Academia in humanities is a systematic gathering of small thoughts! The serendipity, concreteness in emotions, and immediate emotional response hold their systematic significance. Literary study is conjecture and science at the same time!
ps: i hope jeffery carefully read this review or i will be pissed.
1. Definition of conjectural paradigm.
Ginzburg starts with the jobs of detectives, art appraisals, and psychoanalysts who conduct inductive reasoning.
- "In each case, infinitesimal traces permit the comprehension of a deeper, otherwise unattainable reality: traces -more precisely, symptoms (in the case of Freud), clues (in the case of Sherlock Holmes), pictorial marks (in the case of Morelli)."
To put into human words(or my understanding may be wrong), inductive reasoning means that people find the general truth by tracing the tiniest and even marginalized details. And after they eliminate all the false hypotheses, they reach the ultimate conclusion. For example, Sherlock Holmes always solves the crimes by first observing some random marks the criminals leave on-site and then finding the truth based on those details.
2. The history of conjectural paradigm
Stage 1: No difference between conjectural paradigm and scientific paradigm
Ginzburg gives the example of hunting, the invention of language, art valuation in the 16/17th century, and divination to trace the history of conjectural paradigm. In his opinion, early science develops through inductive reasoning. He proposes an exciting point: the process of converting thoughts into words parallels that of science. Language is a very intuitive expression. When people put their observations and reactions in their daily life into language, they convert something very specific into an abstract form. This conversion is precisely what inductive reasoning is and what science in early human history does.
Language, in other words, is both conjectural reasoning and science. It is fair to say that at some point in history, the conjectural paradigm is the same as the scientific paradigm---what people feel is the ultimate truth.
Stage 2: Galileo's time: Conjectural paradigm diverges from the scientific paradigm
With the development/emergence of scientific experiments, the conjectural paradigm diverges from the scientific paradigm. Scientists all try to control variables in their experiments to have the most subjective results. The more personalized the case is, the less scientific it is.
Stage 3: Solve the conflicts between conjectural paradigm and scientific paradigm
How should we solve the conflicts between the individual and the universal? There are two solutions: #1, we scientize everything. Or #2, we develop a new conjectural paradigm in which individual thoughts are constructed on a scientific and universal ground.
I will expand on method #2, which is my favorite part of the book.
Ginzburg thinks that while science codified and eliminated the "personalized" and "abnormal" conditions, these individualized cases help to give a more accurate definition of "normal."
It is pretty hard to understand his argument here, and I will put it into human words based on my understanding. Let's have the example of dating. When we date someone who is insane, we consider them "abnormal." However, the existence of those people expands our understanding of relationships. And that new understanding is closer to reality.
Quoting from Ginzburg,
- "Knowledge of this sort in each instance was richer than any written codification; it was learned not from books but the living voice, from gestures, and glances; it was based on subtleties impossible to formalize, which often could not even be translated into words; it constituted the patrimony, partly unitary, partly diversified if men and women from all social class."
- "These insights were bound by a subtle relationship; they had all originated in concrete experience. The force behind this knowledge resided in this concreteness, but so did its initiation- the ability to use the powerful and terrible weapon of abstraction."
Ginzburg thinks a divergence exists between the very early stage science, such as divine/hunting, and modern science. The former is too individualized and cannot be applied to the general public. At the same time, the latter eliminates many important, localized, and complex individual details. The divergence between the "native" and "modern" needs to be resolved. He gives the example of the encyclopedia by Denis Diderot as a great attempt to resolve the divergence.
Stage 4: applications of conjectural paradigm
It is pretty boring (I give up taking notes here). I expect him to cover more on the relationship between knowledge and power, such as defending individual human rights in the knowledge acquiring process from a historical epistemological perspective. However, Ginzburg is quite basic and speaks about ethics. He identifies the relationship between knowledge and power and talks about examples such as fingerprint identifications.
Overall, for good reasons, Ginzburg is a must-read figure in terms of epistemology. There has continuously been biasing among people that literature has no epistemology----which I don't see this way. Academia in humanities is a systematic gathering of small thoughts! The serendipity, concreteness in emotions, and immediate emotional response hold their systematic significance. Literary study is conjecture and science at the same time!
ps: i hope jeffery carefully read this review or i will be pissed.
April 26, 2014
i can't really pretend to understand all the essays in this book, although i attempted to tackle them all. they went above my head! like so above my head with their level of detail about things i was unfamiliar with that i was unable to even google and keep up with what was being said.
i loved, however, the essay 'clues: roots of an evidential paradigm' which i think was totally brilliant and really blew me away. essentially, ginzburg relates so many epistemological methods or paradigms to a method of determining authenticity in paintings presented by giovanni morelli in 1874. this method suggested looking at the details which don't matter, the ears or the fingernails, to determine if a painting is a fake. he introduced this concept of what people do when they are not paying attention being crucial to our understanding of circumstances surrounding us.
ginzburg connects this idea, introduced by morelli, to freud, who was a fan of morelli's concepts. and also, to the detective novel -- sherlock holmes indeed solves crimes by examining the minute details others wouldn't think of being crucial as evidence.
and then finally (woah! mind blown!) he draws this all back to our evolution from hunters, who examined the tracks of animals and broken leafs and branches in the forest as we hunted our food. the clever detective, deducing so much from seemingly so little, can be traced back to a hunter observing tracks, he argues.
i'm sure the rest of the book is just as clever and smart, i just don't have the background knowledge to really appreciate it all...
i loved, however, the essay 'clues: roots of an evidential paradigm' which i think was totally brilliant and really blew me away. essentially, ginzburg relates so many epistemological methods or paradigms to a method of determining authenticity in paintings presented by giovanni morelli in 1874. this method suggested looking at the details which don't matter, the ears or the fingernails, to determine if a painting is a fake. he introduced this concept of what people do when they are not paying attention being crucial to our understanding of circumstances surrounding us.
ginzburg connects this idea, introduced by morelli, to freud, who was a fan of morelli's concepts. and also, to the detective novel -- sherlock holmes indeed solves crimes by examining the minute details others wouldn't think of being crucial as evidence.
and then finally (woah! mind blown!) he draws this all back to our evolution from hunters, who examined the tracks of animals and broken leafs and branches in the forest as we hunted our food. the clever detective, deducing so much from seemingly so little, can be traced back to a hunter observing tracks, he argues.
i'm sure the rest of the book is just as clever and smart, i just don't have the background knowledge to really appreciate it all...
October 17, 2021
virtuosic scholarship! i could dream of being this well-read. ginzburg is a force to be reckoned with.
Read
November 17, 2025Five stars for the translators, who didn't face an easy task. I found this nearly unreadable, but not because of the translation, which was smooth and convincing.
The insights I gained from this book weren't worth the extraordinary mental labor of trying to understand it. It assumes too much knowledge about too many other theorists. There might have been a time in my life when I would blame myself for my ignorance (and certainly no one else is responsible for my ignorance!) – but at this point I've read enough books & essays that can take something very complex and make it easier to follow, that believe part of communication is ensuring your partner (in this case, your reader), can keep up with you. I know it can be done, and I expect teachers and writers to do it.
I enjoyed and recommend the first essay, "Witchcraft and Popular Piety: Notes on a Modenese Trial of 1519." The rest left me cold -- and even more impressed by the accessibility (despite theoretical complexity) of Natalie Zemon Davis and Robert Darnton.
The insights I gained from this book weren't worth the extraordinary mental labor of trying to understand it. It assumes too much knowledge about too many other theorists. There might have been a time in my life when I would blame myself for my ignorance (and certainly no one else is responsible for my ignorance!) – but at this point I've read enough books & essays that can take something very complex and make it easier to follow, that believe part of communication is ensuring your partner (in this case, your reader), can keep up with you. I know it can be done, and I expect teachers and writers to do it.
I enjoyed and recommend the first essay, "Witchcraft and Popular Piety: Notes on a Modenese Trial of 1519." The rest left me cold -- and even more impressed by the accessibility (despite theoretical complexity) of Natalie Zemon Davis and Robert Darnton.
May 6, 2016
I HAVE TO READ IT FOR COLLEGE.
I DON'T GET A WORD THIS GUY SAYS.
ALL I GOT IS: HE BELIEVES EVERYBODY KNOWS LATIN, GERMAN AND ITALIAN AND EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
MY BEST WAS 10 PAGES A DAY AND THAT WAS BECAUSE 2 OF THEM WERE MEANINGLESS.
I GIVE UP. I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS. I CAN'T BELIEVE I WANTED TO READ THE BOOK ABOUT THE CHEESE. IT IS SUCH A GOOD THEME. BUT IF THIS GUY WROTE IT THERE IS NO CASE.
TENGO QUE LEERLO PARA LA UNIVERSIDAD.
NO ENTIENDO UNA PALABRA DE LO QUE DICE ESTE TIPO.
LO QUE ENTENDI FUE: EL CREE QUE TODO EL MUNDO SABE LATÍN, ALEMÁN E ITALIANO Y QUE TODO EL MUNDO ENTIENDE ESOS IDIOMAS.
LO MÁS QUE PUDE LEER FUERON 10 PÁGINAS EN UN DIA Y ESO FUE PORQUE 2 DE ELLAS ERAN DE RELLENO.
ME RINDO. NUNCA VOY A ENTENDER ESTO. NO PUEDO CREER QUE QUERIA LEER EL QUESO Y LOS GUSANOS. ERA UN TEMA GENIAL PARA UN LIBRO. PERO SI LO ESCRIBIÓ ESTE TIPO, NO VOY A PODER ENTENDERLO. NO HAY CASO.
I DON'T GET A WORD THIS GUY SAYS.
ALL I GOT IS: HE BELIEVES EVERYBODY KNOWS LATIN, GERMAN AND ITALIAN AND EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
MY BEST WAS 10 PAGES A DAY AND THAT WAS BECAUSE 2 OF THEM WERE MEANINGLESS.
I GIVE UP. I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS. I CAN'T BELIEVE I WANTED TO READ THE BOOK ABOUT THE CHEESE. IT IS SUCH A GOOD THEME. BUT IF THIS GUY WROTE IT THERE IS NO CASE.
TENGO QUE LEERLO PARA LA UNIVERSIDAD.
NO ENTIENDO UNA PALABRA DE LO QUE DICE ESTE TIPO.
LO QUE ENTENDI FUE: EL CREE QUE TODO EL MUNDO SABE LATÍN, ALEMÁN E ITALIANO Y QUE TODO EL MUNDO ENTIENDE ESOS IDIOMAS.
LO MÁS QUE PUDE LEER FUERON 10 PÁGINAS EN UN DIA Y ESO FUE PORQUE 2 DE ELLAS ERAN DE RELLENO.
ME RINDO. NUNCA VOY A ENTENDER ESTO. NO PUEDO CREER QUE QUERIA LEER EL QUESO Y LOS GUSANOS. ERA UN TEMA GENIAL PARA UN LIBRO. PERO SI LO ESCRIBIÓ ESTE TIPO, NO VOY A PODER ENTENDERLO. NO HAY CASO.
September 14, 2008
One of the two chapters I read was about an "evidential paradigm", tracing a supposed lineage from prehistoric hunters tracking animals, to ancient divination techniques and Hippocratic medicine, to connoisseurs of European paintings, Freud, Sherlock Holmes and contrasting these ways of knowledge to scientific positivism. The other was comparing the practices of judges during the Inquisition to those of anthropologists. Sort of interesting to read I guess but probably not something I would ever refer back to.
August 1, 2021
Not for beginners
An interesting book on historiography and how to use odd, contested, or incomplete sources. It is not a book one can just walk into as an introductory text and requires a fair bit of knowledge about mid- and late 20th century historical debates particular to Europe in general and Italy in specific. However, many of the essays are fascinating.
An interesting book on historiography and how to use odd, contested, or incomplete sources. It is not a book one can just walk into as an introductory text and requires a fair bit of knowledge about mid- and late 20th century historical debates particular to Europe in general and Italy in specific. However, many of the essays are fascinating.
April 30, 2024
Dope very beautiful majestic. Scholarship that takes the object and method as a cohesive whole. A unique method too! One that allows for extremely interesting detail to come through… loved it much better than cheese and the worms imo
August 26, 2024
Los mejores académicos, según mi punto de vista, no son aquellos que se dedican meramente a la crítica, ni siquiera aquellos que la acompañan con premisas propositivas, sino que son quienes demuestran su pensamiento. En otras palabras, son aquellos que aterrizan su teoría a la práctica. Y eso es esta obra. La culminación y materialización de la micro historia y, en específico, del paradigma indiciario. Es aquí donde Ginzburg demuestra que, efectivamente, “Dios anida en los detalles”.
January 22, 2024
Ginzburg ha sempre la capacità di farti capire che, in fondo, al mondo c'è sempre qualcuno che ne sa più di te. I saggi tuttavia vanno al di fuori del mio interesse immediato, e non sono assolutamente fruibili per un "principiante" come il sottoscritto riguardo alla storia dell'arte. Molto interessante l'articolo su Freud e quello sulle "spie".
August 26, 2021
Not a light read, but even a lowly bejant like myself walked away with a few threads of comprehensible insights to consider as I begin my studies. I look forward to rereading this yearly to see how much more I can glean from it as I understand the process and the methods of studying history.
April 22, 2022
Ho letto la traduzione inglese perché la versione italiana (1986) è fuori catalogo e devo dire che, in tutta franchezza, nonostante la profonda ammirazione che nutro nei confronti di Carlo Ginzburg, nella sua sconfinata cultura e nella sua meravigliosa capacità di ragionamenti sottili, acuti, con collegamenti interdisciplinari (dalla storia dell’arte alla linguistica, dalla psicologia all’antropologia, dalla documentazione storica alla deduzione) questo testo è fin troppo intellettuale per le mie capacità. Inoltre fa riferimento ad una serie di articoli pubblicati ormai quasi mezzo secolo fa (se non di più) e ai dibattiti che ne sono seguiti: credo che questi suoi articoli siano stati all’epoca e in ambito universitario, apprezzatissimi; oggi non si discute la preparazione di Ginzburg ma la vecchiezza di argomenti per cui per essere in grado di godere veramente dei ragionamenti dell’autore, bisogna avere la stessa profondità di conoscenze che, lo riconosco apertamente e senza vergogna alcuna, io non ho. Tre stelline perché è comunque un testo interessante, ma superiore alle mie capacità.
Read
June 12, 2025Every essay in this collection is 95% empirical 5% theoretical. I'm imagining that someone familiar with Ginzburg's ouvre could come away with more theory, by intuiting what they already know. However, this collection itself does not provide any basis for a modular or applicable historical method. If you came looking for that, look elsewhere.
This collection a sweeping survey of different historical, anthropological, aesthetic, and literary topics, dealt with tediously and with minimal interpretive work. The intellectual efforts of the author is largely in stitching these topics together and arranging them as in his metaphor of threads in a "carpet." It is not in itself, very convincing.
This collection a sweeping survey of different historical, anthropological, aesthetic, and literary topics, dealt with tediously and with minimal interpretive work. The intellectual efforts of the author is largely in stitching these topics together and arranging them as in his metaphor of threads in a "carpet." It is not in itself, very convincing.
March 7, 2021
Brilliant scholar and great work.
December 15, 2013
Estupendo! Ginzburg nos mostra, dentre outras coisas, que é possível, sim, um diálogo não promíscuo entre a história e a psicanálise. Ademais, seu clássico texto sobre o método indiciário é uma sistematização teórica de seu próprio fazer historiográfico. Um livro necessário, que eu já deveria ter lido na graduação.
April 13, 2014
Un erudito de la talla de Ginzburg no es para cualquiera. No es para mí, por ejemplo. Tiene un nivel de detalle histórico y suposiciones previas de formación disciplinar que me escapan. Algunos ensayos más metodológicos los entendí (como el famoso de "Indicios") pero los de arte renacentista no cacé una. El del sueño del lobo de Freud está bueno, aunque tampoco logré entenderlo todo.
February 1, 2013
Me encantó el último capítulo. Algo escribí de él acá: http://lalectoraaburrida.blogspot.com...
July 19, 2013
So seemingly dry to begin with, and then so excellent. Wonderful intuitive diagonal leaps. Fantastic erudition.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews