This book is a comparative study of imperial organization and longevity that assesses Ottoman successes as well as failures against those of other empires with similar characteristics. Barkey examines the Ottoman Empire's social organization and mechanisms of rule at key moments of its history, emergence, imperial institutionalization, remodeling, and transition to nation-state, revealing how the empire managed these moments, adapted, and averted crises and what changes made it transform dramatically. The flexible techniques by which the Ottomans maintained their legitimacy, the cooperation of their diverse elites both at the center and in the provinces, as well as their control over economic and human resources were responsible for the longevity of this particular 'negotiated empire'. Her analysis illuminates topics that include imperial governance, imperial institutions, imperial diversity and multiculturalism, the manner in which dissent is handled and/or internalized, and the nature of state society negotiations.

Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective

Social status and legal privilege in the Roman Empire

Introduction Part I: 1. Who stole what? Time and space 2. Antiquity: no markets, but did they invent politics, freedom and the alphabet? 3. Feudalism: transition to capitalism or the collapse of Europe and the domination of Asia 4. Asiatic despots, in Turkey and elsewhere? Part II: 5. Science and civilization in Renaissance Europe 6. The theft of 'civilization': Elias and Absolutist Europe 7. The theft of 'capitalism': Braudel and global comparison Part III: 8. The theft of institutions, towns and universities 9. The appropriation of values: humanism, democracy and individualism 10. Stolen love: European claims to the emotions 11. Last words Bibliography.

The Theft of History

http://www.reteccp.org/biblioteca/dossier/handy.pdf

Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies

Drawing on William Dawes' unpublished notebooks on the Indigenous languages spoken around Sydney Cove at the time of white settlement, this article hopes to provoke critical reflection on the limits of the law Dawes' record of communication with Patyegarang documents a transaction that was both political and erotic, both about the law and in defiance of it In performances that were gestural as well as verbal, they marked out a middle ground where the laws governing both of them were placed in parentheses and new, provisional, rules of exchange improvised This article notices the existence of this middle ground, and marks its disappearance in subsequent legal discourse about the status of Indigenous people Ultimately, it offers a reflection on the laws that govern the meeting place which the middle ground underwrites That is, before public space became fixed for the legally binding discourse of politics, it was mobile and self-constituting Is this simply a myth or is it a mythopoetic mechanism for rethinking the grounding of law in Australia? If it is the latter, then the next step will be to establish a middle ground of exchange with Indigenous law-giving systems

Public Space: Its Mythopoetic Foundations and the Limits of the Law

role, rights, and responsibilities of women outside the palace, and how did she change things for them, if at all ? The chapter on Antonia and sculpture is interesting, although, as K. points out, since no sculptured portrait of Antonia has been found with its original inscription, her identification is hypothetical. I remain unsure what sculpture can tell us about Antonia's position in Rome and how she was perceived by those in power, still less by ordinary people. The Senate decreed in A.D. 19 that an arch was to be erected in the Circus Flaminius in honour of Germanicus, with statues of his mother and father Antonia and Drusus, and of his wife, brother and sister, and children. So, Antonia had a central place, but as mother of the recently deceased prince in a public memorial, could we expect anything else? We have no way of knowing how people reacted to the iconography of Antonia, how popular and well-known she really was, and how far her celebration in the visual arts was merely routine. In the end, if Tacitus has little to say about Antonia (p. 159), that may be due not to ignorance but to his historical judgement.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0009840X00290896

The Emperor and His Army Egon Flaig: Den Kaiser herausfordern. Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich . (Historische Studien, 7.) Pp. 605. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag, 1992. Paper, DM 98.

About 500 B.C. Aeakes, the son of Bruchon, set up and dedicated a statue of a seated divinity in the precinct of the Heraion on Samos, describing himself as the man who burnt (or sold) the τ μθ for Hera. The sulê, we must deduce, had received the endorsement of the community: it was not simply a piece of private enterprise by a powerful Samian. This takes it out of the realm of wanton piracy from the point of view of the Samians, though the victims would not necessarily have shared this view.1 It is easy to associate it with the comment of Herodotus on the great tyrant Polycrates that ‘he plundered and kidnapped all indiscriminately’ (Hdt. 3.39.4), and explain as part of a tradition of Samian piracy. It may also have a place within a longer and more widespread tradition of seizures in reprisal or alleged reprisal, that can be traced from the Homeric poems deep into the Hellenistic period. Τ μα (neuter plural) and τ μθ with the corresponding verb τφμ8ξ are wide-ranging terms, regularly found in legal texts and elsewhere, for seizure in pursuit of a remedy for a wrong. They developed a precise sense of the seizure of property, including slaves, but they can on occasion apply to free persons as well. Σ τια and the verb ’σφτι0 ειξ are also widely used, the former first found in the Iliad, and can apply to both people and objects. The word 4ηειξ, often used for plundering, is used more precisely in legal texts for the seizure of humans and animals as reprisals.2 This is a topic in which the few literary texts have been vastly enriched by epigraphic material. Modern scholarship began with an article by Dareste. His views lay behind the later discussion of arbitration by Tod.3 About thirty years ago two further works on arbitration discussed many texts relevant to sula4 and they were followed by the exhaustive study of Bravo, which was the first book dedicated to the subject of sula and has stimulated Classical Quarterly (2004) 54.2 340–353 doi:10.1093/clquaj/bmh043 340

Sula: Reprisal by seizure in greek inter-community relations

si quis patriae meae pecuniam credat, non dicam me illius debitorem nec hoc aes alienum profitebor aut candidatus aut reus: ad exsoluendum tamen hoc dabo portionem meam. If anyone were to lend money to my country, I will not call myself his debtor nor will I declare this as money owed either when a candidate or when prosecuted: nevertheless, I will contribute my share to paying off the debt. Miriam Griffin drew attention to the comment of Justus Lipsius: ‘a defendant might have to make such a declaration in cases involving financial penalties, such as extortion and peculation, for when the litis aestimatio [‘assessment of damages’] was made, it would be important to know who the other claimants to the convicted man's assets were, and how encumbered his property was.’ No further elucidation, however, has been made since Lipsius. Mommsen failed to record this passage in his Staatsrecht and Strafrecht, and, as far as we know, no monograph on Roman criminal law mentions the passage of Seneca.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S000983881800040X

Seneca, de beneficiis 6.19.5—a neglected text on roman public law

ille triumphata Capitolia ad alta Corinthouictor aget currum, caesis insignis Achiuis.eruet ille Argos Agamemnoniasque Mycenasipsumque Aeaciden genus armipotentis Achilli,ultus auos Troiae, templa et temerata Mineruae. (Verg. Aen. 6.836–40)That man will drive his chariot to the lofty Capitol in a triumph over CorinthA victor, made glorious by the Greeks he has slaughtered.That man will overthrow Argos and Agamemnon's MycenaeAnd the very offshoot of Aeacus, the kinsman of Achilles mighty in arms,Avenging his Trojan ancestors and the desecrated temple of Minerva.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0009838818000496

Andrew Lintott

Papers

The Emperor and His Army Egon Flaig: Den Kaiser herausfordern. Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich . (Historische Studien, 7.) Pp. 605. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag, 1992. Paper, DM 98.

Sula: Reprisal by seizure in greek inter-community relations

Seneca, de beneficiis 6.19.5—a neglected text on roman public law

Which romans punished the greeks for what they did to troy