A little exercise

Dear students,

on the basis of what we have discussed in class today, Prof. Conte suggested to ask you to give examples of “stories” which can be considered relevant from a legal point of view and that have been “told” in different ways in the course of time, in order to mirror different legal perspectives. Usually those stories are related to the fields of constitutional law, international law and human rights (which are related to both the above mentioned fields).

Examples: The Trojan War between the Greeks and the Trojans as it is told by Homer or Virgil or the story of the conquest of America.
Advertisements

25 thoughts on “A little exercise

  1. Martina Diglio says:

    One well known example of a story that has been told in different ways during the time, is that related to the invention of the telephone: who was the real inventor? Bell or Meucci? It happened to me to read different theories. According to my english textbook it was Bell, according to my history textbook it was Meucci. Briefly, this is what happened: Meucci filed a patent caveat for a telephone device in 1871. The patent caveat was less costly than a full patent and required a less detailed description of the invention. This patent lasted one year and was renewable. Meucci, in 1874, didn’t renewed his one. Afterwards, Bell got a full patent in 1876. At this point started an argument between Meucci and Bell, because the first one claimed that his invention was already well known in New York so, according to the intellectual property law, Bell’s patent shouldn’t have been granted. Bell, on the other end, claimed that he was the real (electromagnetic) telephone’s inventor. During the trial Meucci didn’t succeed in demonstrating that his invention was actually known. However, the trial lasted 9 years and never came to an end. In 2002 U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution according to which “if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell.” Someone may say that it wasn’t financial problems that prevented him from renewing his patent though, because he renewed patents for others inventions. Also the Canadian Parliament passed a motion to establish that was Bell indeed the inventor of the telephone, criticizing the Congress Resolution. In conclusion, which story is true? Still today we don’t know if Bell “stole” Meucci’s invention or if Bell’s invention was different from the one that Meucci had invented.

    Like

  2. Antonio Belviso says:

    I was thinking about the invention of the telephone too. Martina’s example is very pregnant. Another similar interesting story concerns the most famous false in history of contemporary music: the “Adagio in G minor”, well known as Adagio by Tomaso Albinoni. The musicologist Remo Giazotto, told a very passionate story: during the bombing raid in Dresda, in 1945 he found among the ruins of the State Library some manuscript scores by Tomaso Albinoni, and saved them, risking his own life. After a philological reconstruction, he introduced to the world this composition, that quickly beacame very famous. It was published by G. Ricordi as Albinoni work revised and completed by Giazotto, in a similar way used for publication of unfinished Turandot, completed by F. Alfano. This means that any other composer could rework, without permission, the original scores in the same way L. Berio rewrote the final act of Giacomo Puccini’s Turandot. In fact Adagio was used, arranged and so on, by many other musicians, film directors, etc. After Giazotto died in 1998, he left some private writings that confirmed a suspition that was, by that time, really concrete among musicologists: “Adagio” was indeed a R. Giazotto original composition created from nowhere in 1958. So it changed the permission in using and modifing that piece, going from a simple co-production or revision to a real original composition. The Adagio is now entirely attributed to Giazotto and it will not be in the public domain until 2068.

    Like

  3. Beatrice says:

    I was thinking about the conspiracy of Catilina, which is described in two different ways by Cicerone and Sallust. In fact, Cicerone described Catilina as a depraved,greedy,criminal man and his words are really tough. Since he was a senator, he was trying to defend the senate, thinking about a glorious past, while Sallust underlined the corruption of the Senate and he defended common people. Sallust described Catilina as a criminal as well, but his words are not as strong as Cicerone’s. Another important difference can be found in the moment in which the two works were written; Cicerone wrote the “Catilinaria” during the conspiracy, while Sallust wrote “De Catilinae Coniuratione” after it.

    Like

  4. Andrea Zoppo says:

    I would like to make an example that is happening those days: the recent invasion by the Russians of the Crimea regions. The western states see that as an aggression of the legitimate state of Ukraine. So it’s a violation of all the international rules about the territorial sovereignty and the integrity of the state. On the other hand Putin claims that it is not an aggression, but a safeguarding of the right of Self determination of the people, confirmed by the referendum with a great majority who voted in favor of secession. Who is right and who is wrong? This an example of how two legal points of view can tell the same story… but with a complete different conclusion.

    Like

  5. Sarah Penge says:

    The story I choose is from Shakespearean’s literature, “The Merchant of Venice”. I would like to introduce the topic focusing on the historical background, where we see the characters’ reaction about antisemitism.
    In 1290s, English Jews were banned from England under Edward 1st until Oliver Cromwell’s republic in 1656. In the specific case of Venice’s Republic, Jews were obliged to wear a red hat for being easily recognized (reprised as well during nazis dictatorship).
    After that brief introduction, Antonio, the merchant of Venice, the one that would like to marry Portia, has antagonized Shylock through his outspoken antisemitism. Shylock, in the other way, is depicted as a miser man, but dutiful at the same time: he lend the sum to Antonio without interest upon one condition, if Antonio is unable to repay it at the specified date, Shylock may take a pound of Antonio’s flesh.
    Antonio can not settle the debt, so Shylock went in front of the judge for asserting his own rights. At the end of the story, we see Shylock destroyed by the abilities of the main characters on saving Antonio, who was not able to pay for the debt as I said before.

    I see this story like a typical description about “how the people considers Jews”: nowadays the main idea could be the violation of human rights, because Shylock behaves well, but he loses the trial. In the other hand, Antonio is not able to pay for his debts, but he wins the trial. We see at the same time the point of view if both men, but we are also confused on what is right and what is really wrong.

    Like

  6. Antonio Belviso says:

    A particular case of a tale legally relevant and literary criticism used in a trial, concerns the novel “Ragazzi di vita” written by Pasolini. He was accused of pornography and obscenity, not so much for the content, but rather for the form, in particular the massive use of foul language. Pasolini defended himself by saying that linguistic register had to imitate the language of township boys. Trial hearings became practically literary and cinematographic review debates. Even the master Giuseppe Ugaretti was called to testify: he said that it wold be offensive if Pasolini’s characters had spoken as Cicisbei. The judge said: – Ok, in direct speech, it could be justified the use of foul language, but not in indirect one, because in that case, the voice is the voice proper of the author -. Pasolini replied with a fine writing technique lesson, saying the words outside the quotation marks were used in a way called “indirect free speech”: narrator use a voice that it’s not his own one, but reproducing way of thinking and talking of his characters.

    Like

  7. Mattia Palatta says:

    I think another relevant example could be the Crusades stories and the struggle between christians and muslims in Middle Age. This events are, in fact, object of different representations in times and ages and each one of these is mainly influenced by the cultural background and the peculiar way of thinking. One of the first texts about this theme is the “Chanson de Roland”, a medieval poem considered as one of the most important representative of the “Chanson des gestes” genre, where the most relevant aspect is reserved to the valor and the idea of chivalric values, perfectly embodied by the character of Roland (the main character of the poem and the preferred knight by the king Charles Magne). After many centuries, in the middle of the Italian Renaissance, other two poems talks about this topic: the “Orlando Innamorato”, the unfinished poem by Matteo Maria Boiardo, and, mainly, the “Orlando Furioso”, written by Ludovico Ariosto. The last one is considered as one of the most relevant example of the Renaissance literature and perfectly represents the transformation of the cultural sensibility and the common idea of the chivalric values. In this poem, in fact,, the poet is focused on the representation of the inner conflicts of love (telling the difficult love story between Orlando and Angelica) and foolishness of the character; the text is also famous, of course, for its typical settings (for this reason it could be defined as one of the first example of fantasy literature) and also for the influence from the culture and idea of the Renaissance age (so far from the medieval chivalric values of the origins). Last, but not least, there’s another poem which could be considered as an example of this literary topic: the “Gerusalemme Liberata”, written by Torquato Tasso nearly in the same age of the Ariosto’s poem, which could be considered as well as another member of this literary tradition. Also this poem represents the different perspective of the chivalric values an of the religion wars beyond centuries and follows the example of the other italian poem. But all this poem are able to represent perfectly, in my opinion, the evolution and the transformation of the war religions and of the chivalric values beyond ages and centuries.

    Like

  8. Jessica Ferrazza says:

    I was thinking about The tragedy of Julius Cesar by William Shakespeare.
    At the beginning of the play Julius Cesar,dictator in perpetuity of Rome, is warned by Artermidorus, a shootsayer, to “beware the ides of March”and not to go to the Senate,because there’s a conspiration against him and he would probably get killed. He disegards this advice and goes to the Senate,where,at the end of the session he gets stabbed by Cassius,Casca,Decimus Brutus,Cinna,Metellus Cimber,Trebonius and Caius Ligarius. Marcus Brutus,one of the most famous conspirators and even Julius Cesar’s adoptive son,is the last to stab his father and this is is the famous moment in which Cesar says “Tu quoque,Brute?”. After the dictator’s death,Marcus Brutus delivers a public oration in which he defeats himself justifing his action.He accuses Cesar of lese-majesty because he wanted to become king but after the period of Monarchy the sovereignty only belonged to the citizens and they would have been deprived of this right if he would have become king.He affirms that they have murdered Julius Cesar in order to prevent him from doing something against the Republic and against the citizens of Rome. He even compares Cesar to a snake which has to be killed in it’s egg before it comes out.
    After this oration Brutus discovers that Cassius and the other conspirators haven’t killed Cesar in the name of justice but because they accepted briberies .
    So he remains the only cospirator who have acted,even if in an illegal way, for the good of Rome and for this reason,at the end of the play, Antony declares that Brutus is “the noblest Roman of them all”.

    Like

  9. Diana Martellini says:

    another case that could be of our intrest and that hasn’t come to a conclusion yet, is the case of the italian marò in india . to summon: in the 2012 the enrica lexie, an italian ship involved in trade, happened to be 22 miles away from the indian coast, with two military offcers on board due to a law that was a part of an european programme against piracy, so they were offering theri protection to the ship. The faith wanted that this two officers shot at an indian boat, killing two fishermans. the indian authorities made the enica lexie land in india, e once they landed, arrested the italian officers.
    the main questions here are: did they have the power and the jurisdiction to arrest these people? do these officers have the protection of immunity, so should o shouldn’t be put on trial? if the answer is yes, does india have the jurisdiction to put them on trial, or the nation of the ship -meaning italy- should do that?
    since they landed on theri own will, india seems to have the right to arrest them, even if they were not in territorial sea. so of courese there were a long series of acts form both italy and and india, claiming both the jurisdicion on the matter.
    after not so many years but still a significant amount of time, the international law hasn’t found a satsifying solution to the matter, not only in the specific case but for this type of offence, even if these officers are currently there waiting for the trial, after a few verdict from indian both court and supreme court in which india claims to have the right and the jurisdiction to deal with the case.
    i think this is an emblem example, because shows how la same curse of events can be told in very opposite way, painting the main characters of the story as villains or heroes with no effort.

    Like

  10. Chiara Casuccio says:

    When I think about a story narrated from different points of view, my mind goes to Nürenberg trials: while explaining their reasons, german souldiers argued that there was a law (the nazi one) , and they had been applying it for the whole time. Otherwise, pratically the rest of the world, as well as the judges Who finally issued the sentences, thought that SS souldiers were guilty because of committing terrible crimes against humanity and against peace, no matter the presence of law. This represent the eternal conflict between the form of the law (which was totally valid) and its content (not fair). A specific, peculiar, expression of this point of view has been written by the jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt who criticized the accounts of Nazis explaining how -and here I’m summarizing and paraphrasing- they had been “resetting their consciounsnesses” during the whole time, becoming no more able to understand what’s wrong from what’s right – in a moral and “human” sense- .
    Speaking about the Nürenberg trials and different points of view, I also think about the debate about the validity of this trials: on one hand there was Who thought that they weren’t fair resting on the idea of “nullum crimen,nulla poena, sine praevia lege poenali “. On the other hand , the most agree with the idea that they’re valid and necessary because of the nature of the crimes (against the humanity and peace).
    Of course There would be much more to say but I hope I’ve been comprehensive.

    Like

  11. Elena Francis says:

    I think that an example of a “story” told in different ways and with different points of view in the course of time could be the story of the Second Vatican Council, which started in 1962. This Council was a very relevant and crucial event of the last century that not only influenced the formal aspects of religious life and the structure of Church, but also, and in a very strong way, the meaning of religion and the principles of catholic doctrine, without affirming new dogmas. It was the rebirth of missionary conscience. The most important thing was that the concept of Church was profoundly changed after the Council. The heritage of the Second Vatican Council is represented by a new concept of Church which is a Church nearer to believers. This way the feeling of brotherhood was really increased.
    But what is important, on the basis of what we have discussed in class, is that this event was interpreted in different ways by people who thought that the Council was a “bomb” and by people who considered it as something that hasn’t ever really been applicated. So, on one hand the Council was seen as a deep rift: The Church seen after this event was completely different from the Church before the Council, which was based on the principles of the First Vatican Council. Other personalities, like Father Martina, said that with the Council a new age would have begun. In the years following the Council other ways of thinking in a much more radical way developed, period in which one could distiguish two points of view in strong contrapposition. On the one hand there were people who recognized that the Council was not already applicated. They underlined the difference between the Letter of the Council, what was written during the Council, and the spirit and the real meaning of the Council. The task of the Council, in their opinion, must be contunued going beyond what it is affirmed in it. On the other side there were people who affirmed that the Council says less than initially thought.
    Finally, we can find another interpretation of the Council in the words of Benedict XVI: he analysed this event in a different way, saying that the Council must be considered with what he called “ermeneutica della continuità”, without putting the previous Councils in contrast with the last Council. We should mantain tradition, he affirmed.
    In the end we could say that the Council can have different impact and importance on the basis of the type of interpretations given in the course of time.

    Like

  12. Anthony J. Cacciotti says:

    I can offer two other examples.
    The first one is about a Roman emperor, Caligula, who’s mostly known for his madness and eccentricity. In fact there are several sources, from Philo of Alexandria to Seneca, which all depict Caligula in the same way: an extravagant and insane emperor who was used to kill for amusement, wanted a statue of himself in Jerusalem for his worship and -this’s obviously the most grotesque tale about him- planned to make his horse a consul. But, even though the reliability of these accounts is questionable, modern critics gave us another point of view, another interpretation: nowadays authors are focused more on the ‘humus’, on the substance of that kind af attitude, which may be hiding Caligula’s first aim: to increase his personal power, the power of the ‘legibus solutus’ prince, in order to deprive of authority the Senate. He was inspired by estern regions of the yet-known world, and tried to convert Rome in an absolute monarchy, cutting off the relations and connections with the senators. Actually, the tale of the horse can tell us something more than the emperor’s insanity itself: promising to make his horse a consul, Caligula either disrespects and despites Roman senators.
    The other example I was thinking of is about the witch-hunt during the middle age. People labelled ‘witches’, persecuted for heresy and witchcraft could be blamed by the population for all the social issues such as deseases, poverty and mass hysteria. But, at the same time, witchcraft trials were encouraged by many monarchs and theocrats to prevent popular riots, creating a sort of police control.

    Like

  13. Hichem Sebaibi says:

    I’ve choosen to give an example of a group of person in France who usually called themselves “La dissidence” (The dissidence). They are very relevant case in our subject because they are specialized on “revisiting” mainstream events like the european creation, the second world war, the story of the egyptian empire…etc
    But they are not considered like crazy people and indeed they are not. Their political movement gather all person who are marginalized in their field, and there is lot of people who are listening to them.
    I think they constitute a perfect live example of the action to create (or rebirth, because most of their work is to rebirth others versions of events) another legal perspective on a same storie whatever the support of it. Plus I can observe that their political movement is creating link with other countries, so I can imagine that more and more stories will be redefined by international synergy.

    Like

  14. Federica Rossi says:

    Currently the main example of a two side story can be tracked in the Israeli-Palestian conflict, which has been referred to as the world’s “most intractable conflict”.
    This war concerns the belonging of a land set in the mediterrean area, involving the Israel jewish state and the not indipendent territories of Gaza and West Bank, which are controlled by Hamas, a palestianan islamic organization, but also under Israeli occupation.
    The conflict began at the dawn of twentieth century when european jews ran away from the continental persecutions in order to build an homeland in the so called “Promised Land”. The Arabs resisted, seeing the land as rightfully theirs. ONU’s attempts to give each group part of the land failed and still today Arabs don’t recognise Israel and on the other side Israel doesn’t accept the creation of a Palestinan state and controls Gaza’s borders, limiting who can get in and out also with armed forces. Hamas and Israel devotion respectively to terrosism and destruction imprisons Gaza and the other territories in a conflict that claim victims especially among palestinian civils, in terms of deaths and and cruel life conditions.

    Like

  15. Emanuele Ballabene says:

    I was thinking about the discovery of America.
    We always think about Christopher Columbus like offical discover ,but why the New Continent is called America? Where is this name from?
    There are many theories which sometimes are unknown.
    Columbus left from Palos in the summer of 1492 believing he was going in India.
    But he was wrong. He got a mistake about the circumference of earth so he arriver two months later in San Salvador. Columbus traveled again in America but the first who understood the mistake was Amerigo Vespucci. He went to Brasil and Argentina,he sent many letters to Italy telling that land was a new continent.
    Because of this letters,in Europe people started to call this land America,although always the surnames of the discovers,and not the names,gave rase to the name of new lands.
    Some studiouses tell that the name America takes rase from Ameryk,a merchant from Bristol who payed the jouney that John Cabot made in 1497.
    Who tells the truth? It’s impossible to say!

    Like

  16. Diana Martellini says:

    another case that could be of our intrest and that hasn’t come to a conclusion yet, is the case of the italian marò in india . to summon: in the 2012 the enrica lexie, an italian ship involved in trade, happened to be 22 miles away from the indian coast, with two military offcers on board due to a law that was a part of an european programme against piracy, so they were offering theri protection to the ship. The faith wanted that this two officers shot at an indian boat, killing two fishermans. the indian authorities made the enica lexie land in india, e once they landed, arrested the italian officers.
    the main questions here are: did they have the power and the jurisdiction to arrest these people? do these officers have the protection of immunity, so should o shouldn’t be put on trial? if the answer is yes, does india have the jurisdiction to put them on trial, or the nation of the ship -meaning italy- should do that?
    since they landed on theri own will, india seems to have the right to arrest them, even if they were not in territorial sea. so of courese there were a long series of acts form both italy and and india, claiming both the jurisdicion on the matter.
    after not so many years but still a significant amount of time, the international law hasn’t found a satsifying solution to the matter, not only in the specific case but for this type of offence, even if these officers are currently there waiting for the trial, after a few verdict from indian both court and supreme court in which india claims to have the right and the jurisdiction to deal with the case.
    i think this is an emblem example, because shows how la same curse of events can be told in very opposite way, painting the main characters of the story as villains or heroes with no effort

    Like

  17. Jakob Zarari says:

    Another story that has been very recent in the last months was the beginning of the First World War in the summer of 1914. For me, as an Austrian, this story has a big relevance, because in fact it was the Austrian-Hungarian Empire that declared the war to Serbia. But there are at least two versions of which of these two states at first contravened international law: The Austrian successor to the throne was murdered in Sarajevo and the Austrian Government demanded from Serbia an investigation by Austrian police/lawyers. Serbia did not meet these demands, because they were convinced that were not obliged to do so. The Austrian government gave an ultimatum and after this deadline had passed the Austrian Emperor declared the war. This declaration initiated declarations of war of Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Each of these states was convinced to have a right to wage the war.

    Like

  18. Giulio De Angelis says:

    I was thinking about the Richard the third, written by William Shakespeare, as in the story told, Richard the third still known as the Duke of Gloucester, during the War of the Roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster, and the turmoil caused by the bloodshed of the civil war, conspirates to overthrow his brothers.After the culmination of a series of crimes, in which he plots to have the brother George of Clarence condemned to death, with a false charge, he manages to convince the British Parliament to delegitimize the children and true heirs of his deceased brother and former king Edward the fourth, with the enactment of the famous Titulus Regius..Titulus Regius was a statute of the Parliament of England, issued in 1484, by which the title of King of England was given to Richard Duke of Gloucester, being ony the third in the succession’s line. It was an official declaration, that describes why the Parliament had found, the year before, that the marriage between Edward the fourth and Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, and consequently their children, Edward and Richard, were illegitimate, and therefore debarred from the throne. Thus Richard was proclaimed the rightful king. It’s also interesting finding out, how Niccolò Machiavelli in his works and letters, recognizes Richard the third as one of the examples of perfect prince of his time, capable of strengthening his power, and assuring stability to his country, as well as the Richard the third of Shakespeare mentions Machiavelli in the tragedy, citing him as “that murderer of Machiavelli”

    Like

  19. Federica Politi says:

    I think that a story which can be considered relevant from a “legal” point of view could be “Utopia” , written by Thomas More. This work is divided into two books. In the first one England is described as a land where poverty produces crime, greed and social problems. In the second book he describes Utopia as the ideal state. Utopia, he says, is ruled according to principles of harmony and justice: private property has been replaced by communal ownership, people work only six hours a day and every religion is tolerated. But society isn’t still ready: it is dominated by males and in the book there is a distinction between the free citizens of Utopia and a slave class who do the heavy manual labour. As a plan for a perfect society, Utopia appears in marked contrast to the society in which More actually lived. The abolition of private property has been seen in many different ways in the course of the time. On the one hand those who have criticized for its excessive morality and the fact that there may be injustice even without money or private property, on the other, those who have supported it. An example is Carl Marx who speaks of real “communism”.
    Today we say that equality must be in a position to “start”, not of “arrival”.
    Without the enhancement of individual qualities, the society creates only a mentality barracks, bureaucratic and administrative. The structures can not replace men, even when they are built by millions of men.

    Like

  20. Ada Maria Corrado says:

    An example that came to my mind and might look a bit silly, even though I think it’s on point, is the way the end of the Tsarist Autocracy and the Russian Revolution are represented in the 1997 animated movie “Anastasia”.
    The story is portrayed through the categories, typical of fairy tales and fables, of “good” and a “bad” characters. In this case, the Romanovs are given positive and almost angelic attributes, while the Bolsheviks are simply an agent of chaos who disrupted peace and caused troubles. Russia’s working class, when it’s not loyal to the royal family, is simply ignorored or treated as idle and politically unimportant.
    The movie goes as far as depicting the break of the Revolution in 1917 as something guided by the Devil himself: the Tsar’s family advisor Rasputin sells his soul to evil forces in order to destroy the royal family, stripping the Revolution of every historical and sociologial context in order to turn it into a personal vendetta that is unmistakenly evil.
    It’s clear that what is represented is a partisan view of history and not an accurate one. Granted that the movie doesn’t pretend to be an historical testimony of history, but rather “a fairy tale set against the background of real Russian events”, it is clear that it’s a fairytale thought for a Western audience.

    Like

  21. Beatriz Souza says:

    My first thought was about the left-wing resistance fighters during the military dictatorship in Brazil, that opposed fiercely the authoritarian regime. Brazilian historians don’t agree until now if whether the guerrilla was born as an reaction to one particular repressive act (AI-5 – that gave the president the power to shut down the Congress, suspend the political rights of anyone, etc.) or if it was present even before the dictatorship, influenced by the international context of that time (Russian and Chinese revolutions). Also, the history of the dictatorship itself is told differently until nowadays – some believe it was deleterious, repressive, negative; others, specially military forces, believe that the dictatorship was a necessary “revolution”, and there is still a considerably part of the population that actually wants the dictatorship to come back. In military schools, that part of brazilian history is told in a whole other way. But considering that the current president (Dilma Rousseff) was part of the left resistance (being even arrested and tortured), we could say that one version of the history has won.

    Like

  22. Charles says:

    I’d like to underline, if a may, some differences between two narrative of law in the same fictionnal tale. In 441 BC Christ came out one of the most famous play of Sophocle: Antigone. This play tells us about the way two differents sides can interpret, read and elaborate a tall around the concepts of law and justice, of wrong and rigt. Indeed Sophocle’s work presents us three peculiars event. A civil war, a law wich might be good or wrong and as so, the rebelious acton of some individual (Antigone), and a final ending which enlight the hybris of both sides.

    In the play, two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices are risponsibles for wagging and unleashing a terrible civil war on the city of Thebes. They both end up dead and their uncle, Creon, finally claims and seizes the throne as its own. Thus becoming the avatarisation of the sovereign power and the bearer of the law he decides, by an edict, to cast an eternal punishment on Polyneices for is behavior. Forbidding anyone to give him a proper burrial and funerary rites.

    As much as it is a manifestation of its own power, this prohibition is also conceive as rightfull and rightuous judgement for Polyneices crimes which had been a threat to the very essence and viability of the city.

    Antigone, niece of the new crowned king and sister of Polyneices decides to violate to prohibition and offers to her dead brother a proper burrial. For this, we can suppose thaht she sees, and re, or simply elaborate the narrative of her brother’s crimes different from the king’s one, judging them not worthy of such a punishment. We can talk of conflcting interpretations, as she desagrees with the judgment spawned by Creon’s interpretation of the event. As much are they are also opposed concerning which law should prevail, and as so, whiche one is the fair one. Indeed, once she has been discovered, she argue that she is acting on behalf of common sens, divine and natural law, laws that are told to exceed and overrule human and political law.

    And for her violation she his hastily condemned to death.
    The are just a few in the city to consider her transgression as important enough to earned an horrible death.

    On both sides, tale can be seen as a rhetorical tool, its purpose is to enlight and to justify with the help of an easy and understable scheme, a perception of what is good, fair, or at least necessary.

    Many authors have given their own interpretions of the myth of Antigone in the course of the centuries, and they all read the actions of Antigone and Creon in more or less different way.

    Was Antigone a threat to the city, was it fair to prevent anyone to burry Polyneices?

    Like

  23. Flavia Guglielmi says:

    I want to underline another aspect of the discover of the America. In 2005 I was having an Holiday at the Bahamas exactly in an island called San Salvador. This island was renamed Columbus isle because this was the point where Columbus docked in 1492. During an excursion in a boat, a local resident interested in history told us another story different from the one that everybody study at school. He told us that probably Columbus made the journey before the 1492 because on the grave of Pope Innocent VIII there is shown the sentence “During his reign the discovery of a New World.” The pope, however, died July 25, 1492, a few days before the official start of the Columbus’ journey. The are also a lot of contrasts of the precise point where Columbus docked. I saw a commemorative plaque at the bottom of the sea and for many historians this is the point where Columbus first dropped anchor in 1492. On the cast bronze monument there are these incisions:
    longitude … north latitude 24o41′
    anchor dropped
    columbus oct 12 1492
    in these waters
    This is the picture of the monument: http://www.divebuddy.com/photo/32814/columbus-monument-underwater-in-san-salvador-bahamas/

    Like

  24. Federica Celli says:

    An example of a story that has been told in different ways is the Ustica massacre. In 1980 the airplane Itavia Bologna-Palermo fell down into the Tyrrhenian sea, near Ustica. The reason of the massacre remained uncertain for several years. There were different hypothesis: they thought that the cause of the disaster could be a military missile, but there wasn’t evidence for this, only traces of explosion. Others hypothesis were structural problems or the presence of a bomb on board, but these couldn’t explain the destruction of evidence such as the flight recorder, discovered later. Somebody also thought that it could have been a French missile, launched to intercept the Libyan airplane with Gheddafi on board.
    At the end we still don’t know the precise cause of the Ustica massacre, but in the last years the Italian Supreme Court claimed that surely the cause wasn’t a bomb, but a missile or a collision with another airplane, and that the Itavia airplane was in the middle of a real war action.

    Like

  25. Gabriella Bizzocchi says:

    A story that has been told in different was during the XIX century is the ”Affaire Dreyfus” a political conflict that saw as protagonist the jewish captain Alfred Dreyfus, accused after the war between France and Prussia of high treason in 1894. The case was rich of false proof and anti-semite feelings that were spread among the military class which influenced who had investigated on the case to create falsified documents in order to sentence the jewish commander. Dreyfus was convicted and downgraded after a brief trial and sent to a colonial jail. He always declared his innocence and France divided into dreyfusards (those who believed in his innocence) and anti-dreyfusard (those who deemed his guilt). Some inttellectuals took his side like Zola (who published an article defending Alfred Dreyfus, risking to be arrested), Manet, Renard, Gide, Proust and many others. After many trials that kept asserting his gulit, Georges Picquart and other poeple such as Raniero Paolucci di Calboli collected information about the case and eventually found out the real traitor: Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. Dreyfus had to wait until 1906 to be fully reinstate in the army and to see declared his innocence.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s