Number Six

Senators
  • Content count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Number Six last won the day on November 26 2016

Number Six had the most liked content!

About Number Six

  • Rank
    w < -1
  • Birthday 08/25/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy
  • Interests
    Law, History, Philosophy, Anthropology, etc.

Recent Profile Visitors

205 profile views
  1. http://www.ansa.it/canale_viaggiart/it/notizie/bellezza/2016/11/04/valle-dei-templi-scavi-confermano-scoperta-teatro_908b1dd1-aa91-43ba-8e2d-740288cf20e1.html Still can't find news in English, but apparenly they did finally locate the remains of an ancient Greek theater in Agrigento. For those who do not known, Agrigento is the location of one of the most rich archaeological sites of ancient Greek culture.
  2. Your references are fascinating and interesting with no doubt. Of course comparison is basic for the scientific knowledge of human phenomena. The problem is that the comparative study of myth and religion has been historically associated with the search for archetypes (read: the invention of them) and for any other kind of theoretical and practical connection, giving rise to simplistic and inherently biased views in which the concern of the scholar was to inscribe individual phenomena within a pre-existent theoretical model, rather than understanding them in their individuality. In general it's much more useful to study human phenomena in connection with other phenomena within the same historical and social context: this kind of connections will illuminate their meaning much more broadly and deeply than the comparison with phenomena that, within the context of totally unrelated cultures, may share some specific and yet skin-deep feature.
  3. It is very interesting. I know relatively very little about ancient Egypt, hence I have little to add to the discussion, but the suggested identity between the Tree of Life archetype and the Milky Way is quite interesting. The above picture seems quite clear in indicating the identity. A quick search shows that the same identity has been proposed for the Maya culture: https://web.archive.org/web/20070106021734/http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/creation.html However, all in all I am unfavourable to the comparative study of myth and religion based on the study of so-called 'archetypes' (and it is a faded paradigm anyway).
  4. As long as you don't slaughter your servants for they slept with someone, you should be ok with the influence of Homer.
  5. Archeology has a problem with sensationalism. This is due – I believe – to several factors, some theoretical and some practical: among the theoretical ones I count the general lack of awareness in historical method that characterizes archeology as a discipline, and the circumstance that archeology has been built as a discipline and has flourished as a mean of building and reinforcing national identities. If you add up the fact that any John Doe can run across some sort of ruins and claim their relevance (I cannot simply 'run across' an evidently good historical research, but I can go and escavate one of the many Bronze Age tombs in Calabria and claim that I finally found the tomb of Alcinous), that's why I'm usually cold when I hear that some may have found Jesus' clippers or Aristotle's bidet or whatever.
  6. Yep, of course, English, thanks!
  7. Hi, I hope someone will read this message. I need to re-read Homer for a research project. Especially the Iliad, but also the Odyssey. I will refer to the text in the original Greek, but – given that I'd like to read it again from start to end – I need to start with a translation. I did previously read Homer in the most poetically beautiful translations that I could find (Vincenzo Monti for the Iliad, and Ippolito Pindemonte for the Odyssey – I'm Italian); furthermore, I'm no philologist nor am I an expert of early Greek culture, hence my insight into where to look for the most suitable translations of Homer is very limited. I would like the translation to be as literal and philologically accurate as possible, that's it. I don't need any commentary. Any suggestion will be appreciated. Thanks!
  8. I realized that Robin Lane Fox is quite popular among the general public. He's "known for his works on Alexander the Great", according with Wikipedia. Indeed he also was historical advisor for the film Alexander. Not many ones know the merciless yet fully deserved review of Fox's Alexander by Ernst Badian. Here's the original (not free-access), for the Journal of Hellenic Studies (1976): http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8674232&fileId=S0075426900087978 Here should be the full text: http://historum.com/showthread.php?p=929596?postcount=5 Apparently there is another version too, for an earlier issue (1974), of The New York Review of Books (also not free-access): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1974/09/19/the-alexander-romance/ Anyway, Robin Lane Fox recently (2015) published another biographical book, this time about Augustine: Augustine: Conversions to Confessions. I could find plenty of laudatory reviews, but they're all unqualified (journalists and commentators). I am uninformed about Lane Fox current status in the scientific community. I don't know if he ever regained consideration after trashing one century of scholarship (which nonetheless he borrowed) in his first book, the aforementioned Alexander the Great (1973). Certainly he never made it past being Fellow and Reader. In 2011 he edited a Brill's Companion of Ancient Macedon, so maybe he hasn't been faring too bad. However, I am interested in reading a scholarly review of his new Augustine. If you ever stumble across one, please, signal it here. Also the opinion of anyone who may have read it will be welcome. I haven't read it myself and certainly I do not advise to read it. There is plenty of other good books on Augustine.
  9. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. Italy has a fair number of Moldovan immigrants working as nannies and such, I believe.
  10. Apparently they arrested twelve suspects: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-art-arrests-idUSKCN0WH2OD I hope they find the paintings too.
  11. Sicut adfirmant se vidisse annis singulis in Romana urbe et iuxta ecclesiam sancti Petri in die vel nocte, quando Kalende Ianuarii intrant, paganorum consuetudine chorus ducere per plateas et adclamationes ritu gentilium et cantationes sacrilegas celebrare et mensas illa die vel nocte dapibus onerare.
  12. Because of the politically correct Dante begins the Divine Comedy with Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita (Midway in the journey of our life) and he meant 35, according with Ps. 90:10: Dies annorum nostrorum sunt septuaginta anni aut in valentibus octoginta anni (Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures), which he quotes in another of his works.
  13. Well, 'early antiquity' is usually referred to as 'archaic period'. Classical antiquity is the 6th-5th century BCE for Greece, and 1st BCE - 2nd CE for Rome. So, basicly... GREECE Before 6th century BCE: archaic period 6th-5th century BCE and a little of the 4th: classical period 4th century BCE and onwards: hellenistic period ROME: Before 3rd century BCE: archaic period 3rd-2nd century BCE: hellenization of Rome 1st BCE - half of the 2nd century: classical period half of the 2nd century and onwards: late empire If you wanna sum it up, everything between the 6th century BCE and the 2nd century CE is classic. Everything before is archaic. Or something like that. I stand up with my point: periodizations mean nothing
  14. You're right. Trained lawyers have always been great contributors to culture, probably because law studies were the natural direction for those smart, wealthy and educated men who wanted to make a career and a living; especially when, after the rise of the modern State, law studies became the way for training State officials. Goethe, just to name the most successful one in other fields, was a trained lawyer. Nowadays we have other models of intellectual, while State officials are nothing but bureaucrats.
  15. In Italy Legal History is part of the mandatory curriculum for our equivalent of your Bachelor and Master of Laws. Then there is also Roman Law, while the courses of Legal Philosophy are partially concerned with the history of legal thought from the Enlightenment and onwards. Sometimes also courses of Comparative Law have a highly historical approach. And of course there are also all kind of optional courses. So, basically, any Italian LL.M. is supposed to have a substantial historical education, although those courses are often done with little interest and poor results. As the name says – in Italy we call it History of Medieval and Modern Law (ex History of Italian Law) – Legal History in Italy is concerned with the period from the fall of the of the Roman Empire (476) to the Code Napoleon (1804): basically Middle Ages (476-1492) and Modern Age (1492-1789) according with the traditional periodization. And it goes for Legal History as a University course and as a scientific field. Sometimes, in the name of clarity, students' handbooks begin with Diocletian, but research in that field is highly discouraged because it's considered the field of Romanists. Furthermore, as I said, in the last forty years Italian Legal Historians lost interest in the early Middle Ages. Actually also the 1000-1400 is partly deserted: most Legal Historians prefer to focus on the Modern Age and sometimes they do even go beyond 1804 (while devoting most of their energies to largely irrelevant episodes of local history), which is probably due to the decline in the knowledge of Latin as much as it is due to general trends in education that prefer professional usefulness over erudition. However, all of this concers our topic: since 1. History before 476 CE is the field of Romanists and 2. Legal Historians have deserted early medieval studies for forty years, Italian Legal Historians are totally unconcerned with problems of periodization Late Antiquity. On one hand they don't dare to consider Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages as one item because it would imply trespassing into someone's else garden; on the other hand their lack of interest in the early middle ages has kept them away from the actual paradigm shift that has happened in the international scholarship of Late Antiquity. Now, all of this may sound trivial from an American point of view: who cares if jurists do not know history very well? There are still real historians who know their shit. Unfortunately it's not like that. Traditionally, Legal Historians have been some of the prime contributors to the knowledge of ancient and early medieval history. There is no need to remind that Theodor Mommsen was primarily a jurist. In Italy, Legal Historians from the 19th and the 20th century have been the major contributors in the knowledge of early medieval history, especially because the history of Lombard kingdom aroused as many problems and emotions as I said in the previous message. Gian Piero Bognetti can still be considered one of the major contributors in the field of the Lombard history. Italian classicists and medievalists always advanced in tight dialogue with Romanists and Legal Historians. Legal History is not a secondary field, but a prime one: it can provide a deeply competent insight into the history of the human institutions, but it's not faring well – same with Roman Law in Italy, really.