Friday, May 24, 2019

Legittimazione del potere, autorità della legge: un dibattito antico

Legittimazione del potere, autorità della legge: un dibattito antico
Titolo: Legittimazione del potere, autorità della legge: un dibattito antico
Curatore/i di Ateneo: 
Curatore/i: de Luise, Fulvia
Luogo di edizione: Trento
Casa editrice: Edizioni del Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia
Anno di pubblicazione: 2016
N. di pagine: 292
Parole Chiave: Legittimazione, potere, kratos, plethos, nomos, episteme, arete, basileia
ISBN: 9788884436368
Serie: STUDI E RICERCHE

Open Access Monograph Series: Monografías del Mundo Antiguo y Medieval

Monografías del Mundo Antiguo y Medieval
Esta publicación es semestral y monográfica. El primer semestre se publica sobre “Temas de Historia Antigua y Tradición Clásica” y el segundo semestre sobre “Temas de Historia Medieval y Renacentista”. Los temas pueden ser abordados desde diversas disciplinas, tales como historia, filosofía, literatura, arte, entre otras. Solo se aceptan artículos científicos y reseñas de libros recientes (hasta 5 años de su publicación).
  

See AWOL's Alphabetical List of Open Access Monograph Series in Ancient Studies

Centuries of Darkness

Centuries of Darkness
Welcome to the Official Website of Centuries of Darkness
 Centuries of Darkness Centuries of Darkness A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology

A book by Peter James in collaboration with I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot & John Frankish

The only book to provide a serious alternative to the accepted dating of ancient Egypt and the Near East (Bronze to Iron Age). This highly controversial study rocked the foundations of ancient chronology. As a result, Mediterranean and biblical archaeology are now in turmoil.
Site Contents
Home Page
Publication Details
About the Authors
Preface
A Hundred Reviews
Quotes from Reviews
The Funnier Side
The Continuing Debate
Frequently Asked Questions
Studies in Ancient Chronology
Recent Developments
Other Books by the Authors
Chronology Links
What's New on this Site

Proceedings of the International Conference Anchoring in Antiquity

Proceedings of the International Conference Anchoring in Antiquity
Here you find the revised and annotated versions of the contributions of scholars working with the concept of Anchoring Innovation at the conference Anchoring in Antiquity (pdf, 425 kB), held in Ravenstein, the Netherlands, 17-20 December 2015.
Please note that these papers are work in progress. They are meant to be published elsewhere in their final form. If you want to cite from these papers, please contact the author(s) and ask for the latest version.
  • R. Allan & L. van Gils (University of Amsterdam):
  • M. de Bakker (University of Amsterdam):
  • J. Blok (Utrecht University) & J. Krul (Leiden University):
Success and failure of anchoring political innovation: the case of Solon’s seisachtheia. With PowerPoint (pdf, 455 kB). Official publication see here.
  • B. Breij (Radboud University):
  • E. Bruggink (Radboud University):
  • V. Cazzato (Radboud University):
  • M. De Pourcq (Radboud University):
  • R. Dijkstra & D. van Espelo (Radboud University):
  • A. van den Eersten (University of Amsterdam):
  • A. Harder (University of Groningen):
  • O. Hekster (Radboud University):
  • R. Hunsucker (Radboud University) & R. Praet (University of Groningen):
  • L. Iribarren (Leiden University):
  • I. de Jong (University of Amsterdam):
  • J. Klooster (University of Groningen):
  • I. Kuin (University of Groningen):
What do Sulla and the philosophers have in common? Sulla and the creation of Roman Athens
  • C. Kroon (University of Amsterdam):
  • A. de March (Leiden University):
  • S. Martin (Radboud University):
  • E. Moormann (Radboud University):
  • R. Nauta (University of Groningen):
Un-Anchoring Innovation. Lucan and Tacitus on the Principate
  • O. van Nijf & C. Williamson (University of Groningen):
  • A. Raimondi Cominesi (Radboud University):
  • L. Spielberg (Radboud University):
  • R. Strootman (Utrecht University):
Brand new ancient: Anchoring regime change in Hellenistic Egypt and Babylonia
  • A. Wessels (Leiden University):

A Study in Authenticity : Admissible Concealed Indicators of Authority and Other Features of Forgeries—A Case Study on Clement of Alexandria, Letter to Theodore, and the Longer Gospel of Mark

A Study in Authenticity : Admissible Concealed Indicators of Authority and Other Features of Forgeries—A Case Study on Clement of Alexandria, Letter to Theodore, and the Longer Gospel of Mark
Author: Paananen, Timo
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Faculty of Theology, Biblical Studies
Doctoral Programme in Theology and Religous Studies
Thesis level: Doctoral dissertation (article-based)
Abstract: A standard approach in historically minded disciplines to documents and other artefacts that have become suspect is to concentrate on their dissimilarities with known genuine artefacts. While such an approach works reasonably well with relatively poor forgeries, more skilfully done counterfeits have tended to divide expert opinions, demanding protracted scholarly attention. As there has not been a widespread scholarly consensus on a constrained set of criteria for detecting forgeries, a pragmatic maximum for such dissimilarities—as there are potentially an infinite numbers of differences that can be enumerated between any two artefacts—has been impossible to set. Thus, rather than relying on a philosophically robust critical framework, scholars have been accustomed to approaching the matter on a largely case-by-case basis, with a handful of loosely formulated rules for guidance. In response to these shortcomings, this dissertation argues that a key characteristic of inquiry in historically minded disciplines should be the ability to distinguish between knowledge-claims that are epistemically warranted—i.e., that can be asserted post hoc from the material reality they have become embedded in with reference to some sort of rigorous methodological framework—and knowledge-claims that are not. An ancient letter by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE) to Theodore, in which two passages from the Longer Gospel of Mark (also known as the Secret Gospel of Mark) are quoted, has long been suspected of having been forged by Morton Smith (1915–1991), its putative discoverer. The bulk of this dissertation consists of four different articles that each use different methodological approaches. The first, a discourse analysis on scholarly debate over the letter’s authenticity, illuminates the reasons behind its odd character and troubled history. Second, archival research unearths how data points have become corrupted through unintended additions in digital-image processing (a phenomenon labelled line screen distortion here). Third, a quantitative study of the handwriting in Clement’s Letter to Theodore shows the inadequacy of unwittingly applying palaeographic standards in cases of suspected deceptions compared to the standards adhered to in forensic studies. Additionally, Smith’s conduct as an academic manuscript hunter is found to have been consistent with the standard practices of that profession. Finally, a study of the conceptual distinctions and framing of historical explanations in contemporary forgery discourse reveals the power of the methodologic approach of WWFD (What Would a Forger Do?), which has recently been used in three varieties (unconcealed, concealed, and hyperactive) to construe suspected documents as potential forgeries—despite its disregard of justificatory grounding in favour of coming up with free-form, first-person narratives in which the conceivable functions as its own justification. Together, the four articles illustrate the pitfalls of scholarly discourse on forgeries, especially that surrounding Clement’s Letter to Theodore. The solution to the poor argumentation that has characterized the scholarly study of forgeries is suggested to be an exercise in demarcation: to decide (in the abstract) which features should be acceptable as evidence either for or against the ascription of the status of forgery to an historical artefact. Implied within this suggestion is the notion of constraint, i.e., such that a constrained criterion would be one that cannot be employed to back up both an argument and its counter-argument. A topical case study—a first step on the road to creating a rigorous standard for constrained criteria in determining counterfeits—is the alternative narrative of an imagined creation of Clement’s Letter to Theodore by Smith around the time of its reported discovery (1958). Concealed indicators of authority, or the deliberate concealment of authorial details within the forged artefact by the forger, is established as a staple of the literary strategy of mystification, and their post hoc construction as acceptable evidence of authorship is argued to follow according to criteria: 1) that the beginning of the act of decipherment of a concealed indicator of authority has to have been preceded by a literary primer that is unambiguous to a high degree, 2) that, following the prompting of the literary primer, the act of deciphering a concealed indicator of authority has to have adhered to a technique or method that is unambiguous to a high degree, and 3) that, following the prompting of the literary primer and the act of decipherment, both of which must have been practiced in an unambiguous manner to a high degree, the plain-text solution to the concealed indicator of authority must likewise be unambiguous to a high degree. Tässä väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan Klemens Aleksandrialaisen (n. 150-215 jaa.) kirjettä Theodorokselle, joka sisältää Salaisen Markuksen evankeliumin nimellä tunnettuja tekstikatkelmia. Näissä katkelmissa, jotka eivät sisälly kanonisoituun Uuteen testamenttiin, Jeesus mm. herättää nuorukaisen kuolleista ja opettaa tälle Jumalan valtakunnan salaisuuden. Klemensin kirje todistaa laajemmin kristinuskon varhaisvaiheen moninaisuudesta, mutta sitä on myös epäilty väärennökseksi. Historiallisten väärennösten tunnistamiseen ei ole löytynyt yleisesti hyväksyttyä metodia. Historiantutkijat ovat joutuneet arvioimaan epäiltyjä väärennöksiä tapauskohtaisesti, ja taidokkaasti toteutetut väärennökset johtavatkin usein pitkään ja kiivaaseen keskusteluun. Väitöskirjan ytimen muodostavat neljä artikkelia, joissa tarkastellaan Klemensin kirjettä eri näkökulmista ja kuvataan myös yleisemmin historiallisten väärennösten paljastamiseen liittyviä sudenkuoppia. Ensimmäinen artikkeli kuvaa diskurssianalyysin keinoin väärennösväitteistä käytyä sananvaihtoa, jota leimaa puhuminen toisten tutkijoiden ohi ja yli. Toinen ja kolmas artikkeli analysoivat Klemensin kirjeen käsialaa. Ne paljastavat, että digitaalinen kuvankäsittely on tahattomasti muokannut käsialan yksityiskohtia. Vertailuaineisto osoittaa, ettei Klemensin kirjeen käsiala sisällä "väärentäjän vapinaa" tai muita yleisiä väärennöksen tuntomerkkejä. Neljäs artikkeli tarkastelee ja problematisoi tutkijoiden tapaa perustella väärennösväitteitä luomalla kuvitteellisia tarinoita, joilla selitetään väärennöksien yksityiskohtien syntymistä. Väitöskirjassa ehdotetaan, että historiallisten väärennösten paljastamiseen täytyy kehittää vankka tieteellinen viitekehys. Väitöskirjan yhteenvetoluvussa otetaan tähän ensimmäinen askel tarkastelemalla, kuinka autenttisuuden kysymystä on lähestytty mm. kirjallisuustieteen alalla. Yhteenvetoluvussa analysoidaan mystifikaatiolle (kirjallinen genre) tyypillistä tapaa piilottaa "kätkettyjä tekijyyden indikaattoreita" väärennöksiin. Analyysin perusteella todetaan, että aiemmin tutkijat ovat saattaneet langeta kehittelemään villejä väärennösteorioita erilaisten kuviteltujen vihjeiden ja salakirjoitusten pohjalta. Jotta vältytään tämänkaltaiselta "kryptoanalyyttiseltä hyperaktiivisuudelta," tarvitaan "kätkettyjen tekijyyden indikaattoreiden" käytölle kriteerejä. Ehdotettujen kriteerien mukaan ainoastaan sellaiset "kätketyt tekijyyden indikaattorit" voidaan hyväksyä todellisiksi, joiden 1) olemassaoloon viitataan yksiselitteisesti, joiden 2) purkaminen tapahtuu yksiselitteisellä metodilla ja jotka 3) nimeävät tekijän yksiselitteisellä tavalla.

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Open Access Journal: The Canadian Institute in Greece Bulletin de l'Institut canadien en Gréce

 [First posted in AWOL 2 March 2017, updated 23 May 2019]

 The Canadian Institute in Greece Bulletin de l'Institut canadien en Gréce
ISSN: 0226-2614
http://www.cig-icg.gr/sites/default/files/blog_images/Bulletin.jpg
The Institute produces a semi-annual Bulletin to keep its membership up-to-date on the latest events at the Institute and activities of its members. In addition to reports from the Athens staff and the Institute’s financial reports, the Bulletin also includes the latest news on fieldwork carried out under the aegis of CIG, and by its Board members and members at large, activities organized by its Associations of Friends, and articles by its interns and Fellows.

The most recent issue of the Bulletin, volume 42, appeared in November 2018. Electronic copies of some previous issues may be viewed below:

      Open Accesss Journal: ACME: Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università degli Studi di Milano

       [First posted in AWOL 19 July 2010. Updated 23 May 2019]

      ACME: Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università degli Studi di Milano
      Online ISSN: 2282-0035
      Print ISSN: 0001-494X
      https://riviste.unimi.it/public/journals/46/homeHeaderTitleImage_it_IT.png
      La rivista è quadrimestrale e accoglie articoli e studi su tutti gli argomenti che costituiscono materia d’insegnamento della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia.
      Gli articoli presentati per la pubblicazione sono sottoposti a revisione scientifica anonima.
       

      A partire dall'annata 2009 la Rivista è integralmente on line in formato open-access.


      Gli indici dal 1995 al 2008 sono consultabili in questa stessa pagina

      Gli indici completi di «ACME» dal 1948 al 1994 sono pubblicati nel volume:
      «ACME. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano – Indici (I, 1948 - XLVII, 1994)», Milano, LED, 1996.
      Acme si propone di contribuire allo studio e all’approfondimento dei settori umanistici della ricerca, sia con l’apporto di maestri riconosciuti, sia valorizzando il contributo di studiosi giovani e promettenti che sappiano approfondire specifiche tematiche filologiche e filosofiche, storiche e artistiche.

      V. 71, N. 1 (2018)

      Sommario

      Saggi

      Elena Langella
      PDF
      9-23
      Flavio Burni
      PDF
      25-42
      Filippo Forcignanò
      PDF
      43-55
      Paolo Bodini
      PDF
      57-78
      Leana Rota
      PDF
      79-96
      Giuseppe Rugna
      PDF
      97-121
      Giulia Fusar Poli
      PDF
      123-139
      Laura Gnani
      PDF
      141-168
      Maria Luisa Roli
      PDF
      169-182
      Mariagabriella Cambiaghi
      PDF
      183-196
      Cristina Cavecchi
      PDF
      197-213

      Alla periferia del modernismo. Alcune considerazioni

      Massimiliano Tortora
      PDF
      217
      Giorgio Alberti
      PDF
      219-228
      Annalisa Volpone
      PDF
      229-242
      Massimiliano Tortora
      PDF
      243-252

      Postille

       
      PDF
      255-263
       
      PDF
      265-268








      2018

      V. 71, N. 1 (2018)