Academic literature on the topic 'Archivio storico LUCE'

Il fondo librario e le carte di Hubert Jedin sono conservati presso la Biblioteca della Fondazione Bruno Kessler di Trento. Nel ripercorrere i passi di Jedin negli anni in cui si veniva a formare l'Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico e le vicende conservative dei suoi libri e del suo archivio dopo la sua morte, l'articolo mostra l'importanza di questi fondi per la ricerca sulla storiografia del XX secolo; grazie alla varietà del materiale conservato è possibile soprattutto ricostruire l'ampio network scientifico e il metodo di lavoro dello storico. In particolare, un manoscritto inedito sulla biblioteca di Carlo Borromeo conservato nel Fondo Jedin consente di gettare luce su aspetti ancora poco indagati della sua ricerca, ovvero gli interessi in materia di storia culturale e del libro dello storico del Concilio e il rapporto con Paolo Prodi negli anni in cui entrambi svilupparono i loro studi sui Borromeo.

Luigi (Gino) Pagliarani (Rimini, 1922-Sorengo, 2001) è stato uno dei protagonisti della ricerca psicologica in Italia nella seconda parte del XX secolo. È considerato il padre fondatore della psicosocioanalisi, disciplina volta alla comprensione degli aspetti in-consci e conflittuali nello sviluppo degli individui, dei gruppi e della società. Questo progetto di ricerca intende ricostruire le vicende biografiche di Luigi Pagliarani nella convinzione che esse abbiano svolto un ruolo decisivo nella genesi dei suoi interessi scientifici. Per raggiungere tale obiettivo è necessario esaminare molti documenti inedi-ti di notevolissimo valore storico conservati presso l'Archivio Luigi Pagliarani – oggi situato all'interno del "Centro di documentazione e ricerca" della clinica psichiatrica di Mendrisio. I diversi periodi della vita di Pagliarani – riportati alla luce per mezzo di un approfondito lavoro filologico – confluiranno in una biografia ragionata, umana e intellettuale, che sia riflesso ed espressione dell'Archivio. La biografia dialogherà con un apparato di immagini e un piccolo catalogo digitale dei documenti più significativi. Quella dello psicologo riminese fu per molti aspetti una vita straordinaria: figlio di un antifascista perseguitato durante il ventennio, nel 1943 Pagliarani viene deportato in un Lager in Germania. Rientrato in Italia svolge insieme a Franco Fornari alcune pionie-ristiche ricerche sulla psicologia della guerra atomica e incontra la psicoanalista ticine-se Maria Zanetta che più tardi diventerà sua moglie. Occorre inoltre menzionare l'amicizia che strinse con Federico Fellini e Sergio Zavoli. Il prodotto di questo proget-to di ricerca costituisce una novità nel panorama degli studi di storia della psicologia e valorizza le grandi potenzialità di un Archivio che non è mai stato studiato in modo si-stematico. Inoltre, questo progetto contribuisce alla conoscenza di una personalità che ebbe profondi legami – umani e professionali – con la Svizzera italiana.

Il presente contributo pone l'accento sull'intreccio tra arte tessile e narrazione autobiografica come strumento per portare in luce e ri-definire le storie che l'individuo si trova "cucite addosso" a sua stessa insaputa sin dalla nascita (Mancino, 2021) e che rimandano ad un ambiente non solo fisico, ma anche familiare, sociale e culturale. Viene fatto, in particolare, riferimento ai lavori di Giovanna Del Grande, fiber artist e membro del Gruppo di Ricerca "Trame educative" dell'Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca. L'artista da tempo utilizza la metafora tessile in contesti pedagogico-formativi per promuovere e valorizzare la narrazione di sé in soggetti adulti, con un me-todo che consiste nel mettere le persone in condizione di dar voce e, al tempo stesso, nuova vita al proprio archivio tessile, ovvero alle stoffe e agli indumen-ti riposti nell'armadio e non più utilizzati. Dopo aver illustrato il modo in cui Del Grande invita, nel corso dei suoi work-shop, a ricavare da tali archivi tessili dei tessuti cui dare nuova forma e nuova vita attraverso ago, filo e parole, l'articolo pone l'accento sul progetto "Pelle 2", che tratta della realizzazione di una "tunica narrante", personalizzabile con immagini, decorazioni e parole che la rendano una vera e propria "autobiogra-fia tessile" e che la fiber artist ha in progetto di sperimentare prossimamente con le detenute impiegate nella sartoria del carcere di Pozzuoli.

Questo articolo ha lo scopo di descrivere la prima fase del progetto di digitalizzazione degli archivi del Venerabile Collegio Inglese di Roma. Il progetto è iniziato nel dicembre 2023 e si concluderà nel settembre 2024. Si è articolato attorno a due principali approcci: il primo mira a preservare uno dei documenti fondamentali per la storia del collegio, mentre il secondo ha l'obiettivo di rendere accessibili documenti inediti che gettano luce sulla creazione di diverse diocesi in Nord America (Québec, Baltimore e Filadelfia). La digitalizzazione del primo manoscritto ha rivelato una serie di problemi, principalmente dovuti a un restauro precedente che si è rivelato inadeguato. Questa esperienza sottolinea l'importanza di un approccio meticoloso ed esperto nella conservazione e nella digitalizzazione dei documenti storici, al fine di garantire non solo la loro sopravvivenza fisica ma anche la loro accessibilità alle future generazioni.

Stories of hidden treasure are different from other folkloric forms as in the Estonian folk tradition the motif of money is present in all genres. Monetary relations are discussed in proverbs and riddles. The problems of poverty and wealth are present in fairy tales. Opinions and dreams concerning money are verbalised in poetic forms in folk songs. People know and still practice various methods, partly based on traditional beliefs, that are known to bring good luck in money. The techniques of old magic meet modern recommendations of various kinds. In this article, the focus is on tradition relating to stories of hidden treasure. The legends and other stories (about 5,000 archive texts and recordings) are kept in the Estonian Folklore Archives and date back to the 19th and 20th centuries, although there are more recent materials. We can find three main fields in this tradition, depending on their connection with reality: 1) stories based in fact and on a real event, as evidenced by for example an archaeological find; 2) narratives that are part of local historical and toponymic traditions representing mental geography; 3) unlocalised stories that do not represent folk beliefs or legends and instead deal with more general questions such as what the real price of economic growth is, what consequences humans can face when luck smiles on them, what dangers – including supernatural sanctions – threaten people, and what consequences can be expected when they come into contact with treasures of unknown origin.

В статье анализируются материалы семейного архива Гроздовых, позволяющие проследить преемственную связь между четырьмя поколениями родственников, которые на протяжении всего трагического и противоречивого XX в. бережно сохраняли свои духовные традиции. Благодаря переданным М. В. Ганеевой (Гроздовой) в музейные собрания г. Тамбова фотографиям, рисункам, письмам, документам, дневникам открывается многоцветная эпическая картина, передающая весь спектр духовного мира интеллигенции времён Великой Отечественной войны в городе-госпитале Тамбове. Из этой коллекции наиболее информативным документом, особенно красноречиво свидетельствующим о Великой Отечественной войне, является дневник Вячеслава Тихоновича Гроздова, внука протоиерея Митрофана Гроздова и сына известного хирурга Тихона Митрофановича Гроздова, который и работал совместно со святителем Лукой (ВойноЯсенецким) в годы войны. На страницах дневника запечатлены истории повседневной жизни прифронтового города Тамбова, в который 19 февраля 1944 г. и приехал святитель-хирург Лука. Вячеслав Гроздов зафиксировал факты общения своего отца и святителя Луки, сделал записи об их совместных операциях и выступлениях на конференциях. Сам Вячеслав неоднократно присутствовал на операциях святителя и, будучи искусным в рисовании, помогал ему в подготовке рисунков и таблиц для докладов на медицинских конференциях. Благодаря записям дневника стало известно, что именно Вячеслав Гроздов выполнил карандашный портрет профессора, доктора медицины архиепископа Луки (В. Ф. Войно-Ясенецкого), датируемый 25 марта 1944 г. Дневники Вячеслава - это свидетельство о каждодневном подвиге врачей тамбовских эвакогоспиталей, о том, с какой человеческой болью приходилось сталкиваться. Помогая отцу в госпитале в качестве санитара, а также ведя зарисовки операций и госпитального быта, Вячеслав запечатлел картины, характеризующие события жизни архиепископа-хирурга в городе Тамбове. Кроме прямых указаний на факты общения Гроздовых с архиепископом Лукой, дневник содержит информацию, дающую необходимый контекст для понимания многих ситуаций тамбовского периода служения святителя Луки, а также - в целом - жизни города Тамбова в военные годы. Анализируя информацию из дневника, можно реконструировать и характеризовать духовно-нравственную среду города Тамбова во время архипастырских трудов святителя Луки по возрождению Тамбовской епархии в годы Великой Отечественной войны. The article analyzes the evidence from the Grozdov family archive which allows one to trace the continuity between four generations of relatives who carefully preserved their spiritual traditions throughout the tragic and contradictory 20th century. Thanks to the photographs, drawings, letters, documents, diaries transferred by M. V. Ganeyeva (Grozdova) to the museum collections of Tambov, we can see a multicoloured epic picture conveying the entire spectrum of the spiritual world of the intelligentsia during the Great Patriotic War in the hospital city of Tambov. The most informative document of this collection, especially eloquently testifying to the Great Patriotic War, is the diary of Vyacheslav Tikhonovich Grozdov, the grandson of Archpriest Mitrofan Grozdov and the son of the famous surgeon Tikhon Mitrofanovich Grozdov who worked together with St. Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky) during the war. The pages of the diary depict the stories of the daily life of the front-line city of Tambov where Holy Hierarch-Surgeon Luke arrived on February 19, 1944. Vyacheslav Grozdov recorded the facts of communication between his father and Saint Luke, made notes about their joint operations and speeches at conferences. Vyacheslav himself was repeatedly present at the operations conducted by the Holy Hierarch and, being skilled in drawing, helped him by preparation of figures and tables for his reports at medical conferences. The diary entries reveal that it was Vyacheslav Grozdov who was the author of the pencil portrait of Professor, Doctor of Medicine Archbishop Luke (V. F. Voyno-Yasenetsky), which dates from March 25, 1944. Vyacheslav’s diary entries reveal the everyday self-sacrificial heroism (Russ.: podvig) of the doctors working in Tambov’s evacuation hospitals, and the enormous human pain he had to face. While helping his father in the hospital as an attendant, as well as making sketches of operations and hospital life, Vyacheslav captured pictures characterizing the events of the life of the Archbishop-Surgeon in the city of Tambov. In addition to directly indicating the facts of communication between the Grozdovs and Archbishop Luke, the diary provides the necessary context for understanding many situations throughout the Tambov period of St. Luke's ministry, as well as the wartime life of Tambov in general. Analyzing the evidence from the diary, one can reconstruct and characterize the spiritual and moral environment of the city of Tambov during the archpastoral labours of Saint Luke for the revival of the Tambov diocese during the Great Patriotic War.

Jan Reisner (ca. 1655-1713) was a painter and architect. He was sent by King Jan III together with Jerzy Siemiginowski to study art at St. Luke Academy in Rome. He traveled to the Eternal City (where he arrived on February 24, 1678) with Prince Michał Radziwiłł’s retinue. Cardinal Carlo Barberini, who later became the protector of Regni Poloniae, was the guardian and protector of the artist during his studies in 1678-1682. In the architectural competition announced by the Academy in 1681 Reisner was awarded the fi prize in the fi class, and a little later he was accepted as a member of this prestigious university. He was awarded the Order of the Golden Spur (Aureatae Militiae Eques) and the title Aulae Lateranensis Comes, which was equivalent to becoming a nobleman. The architectural award was conferred by the jury of Concorso Academico, composed of the Academy’s principe painter Giuseppe Garzi, its secretary Giuseppe Gezzi, and the architects Gregorio Tommassini and Giovanni B. Menicucci. In the Archivio storico dell’Accademia di San Luca, preserved are three design drawings of a church made by Jan Reisner in pen and watercolor, showing the front elevation, longitudinal section, and a projection. Although they were made for the 1681 competition, they were labelled with the date 1682, when the prizes were already being awarded. Reisner’s design reflected the complicated trends in the architecture of the 1660s and 1670s, especially in the architectural education of St. Luke’s Academy. There, attempts were made to reconcile the classicistic tendencies promoted by the French court with the reference to the forms of mature Roman Baroque. As a result of this attempt to combine the features of the two traditions, an eclectic work was created, as well as other competition projects created by students of the St. Luke’s Academy. The architect designed the Barberini temple-mausoleum, on a circular plan with eight lower chapels opening inwards and a rectangular chancel. The inside of the rotund is divided into three parts: the main body with opening chapels, a tambour, and a dome with sketches of the Fall of Angels. Inside, there is an altar with a pillar-and-column canopy. The architectural origin of the building was determined by ancient buildings: the Pantheon (AD 125) and the Mausoleum of Constance (4th century AD). A modern school based of this model was opened by Andrea Palladio, who designed the Tempietto Barbaro in Maser from 1580. In the near future, the Santa Maria della Assunzione in Ariccia (1662-1664) by Bernini and Notre-Dame-de-l’Assomption (1670-1676) in Paris by Charles Errard could provide inspiration. In particular, the unrealized project of Carlo Fontana to adapt the Colosseum to the place of worship of the Holy Martyrs was undertaken by Clement X in connection with the celebration of the Holy Year in 1675. In the middle of the Flavius amphitheatre, he designed the elevation of a church in the form of an antique-styled rotunda, with a dome on a high tambour and a wreath of chapels encircling it. Equally important was the design of the fountain of the central church in Basque Loyola (Santuario di S. Ignazio a Loyola). In the Baroque realizations of the then Rome we find patterns for the architectural decoration of the Reisnerian church. In the layout and the artwork of the facades we notice the influence of the columnar Baroque facades, so common in different variants in the works of da Cortona, Borromini and Rainaldi. The monumental columnar facades built according to Carlo Rainaldi’s designs were newly completed: S. Andrea della Valle (1656 / 1662-1665 / 1666) and S. Maria in Campitelli (designed in 1658-1662 and executed in 1663-1667), and Borromini San Carlo alle Quatro Fontane (1667-1677). The angels supporting the garlands on the plinths of the tambour attic are modelled on the decoration of two churches of Bernini: S. Maria della Assunzione in Ariccia (1662-1664) and S. Andrea al Quirinale (1658-1670). The repertoire of mature Baroque also includes the window frames of the front facade of the floor in the form of interrupted beams and, with the header made in the form of sections capped with volutes. The design indicates that the chancel was to be laid out on a slightly elongated rectangle with rounded corners and covered with a ceiling with facets, with a cross-section similar to a heavily flattened dome. It is close to the solutions used by Borromini in the Collegio di Propaganda Fide and the Oratorio dei Filippini. The three oval windows decorated with C-shaped arches and with ribs coming out of the volute of the base of the dome, which were among the characteristic motifs of da Cortona, taken over from Michelangelo, are visible. The crowning lantern was given an original shape: a pear-shaped outline with three windows of the same shape, embraced by S-shaped elongated volutes, which belonged to the canonical motifs used behind da Cortona by the crowds of architects of late Baroque eclecticism. Along with learning architecture, which was typical at the Academy, Reisner learned painting and geodesy, thanks to which, after his return to Poland, he gained prestige and importance at the court of Jan III, then with the Płock Voivode Jan Krasiński. His promising architectural talent did gain prominence as an architect in Poland, although – like few students of St. Luke’s Academy – he received all the honors as a student and graduate.

L’articolo prende in esame un documento, finora inedito, rinvenuto tra le carte dell’archivio viatorio dell’imperatore Enrico VII rimaste a Pisa dopo la morte del sovrano (Pisa, Archivio Storico diocesano, Capitolo del Duomo, diplomatico, 1383 quater). Sprovvisto di data e redatto alla prima persona, contiene una lista di libri e beni depositati a Toul, Basilea e Ivrea da un anonimo membro dell’entourage di Enrico VII, verosimilmente sulle tappe di un percorso diretto a raggiungere il re dei Romani in Italia. La ricostruzione dell’itinerario di viaggio e della biblioteca personale dell’autore (comprendente opere di argomento prevalentemente teologico fra cui spiccano numerosi scritti di Tomaso d’Aquino), permette di fare luce su una figura di rilievo del seguito imperiale, che si propone di identificare con Giovanni di Lucidomonte (Johannes Picardi di Lichtenberg)

In August 2006 the LiveJournal (hereafter LJ) community sga_flashfic posted its bimonthly challenge: a “Mission Report” challenge. Challenge communities are fandom-specific sites where moderators pick a theme or prompt to which writers respond and then post their specific fan works. The terms of this challenge were to encourage participants to invent a new mission and create a piece of fan fiction in the form of a mission report from the point of view of the Stargate Atlantis team of explorers. As an alternative possibility, and this is where the trouble started, the challenge also allowed to “take another author’s story and write a report” of its mission. Moderator Cesperanza then explained, “if you choose to write a mission report of somebody else’s story, we’ll ask you to credit them, but we won’t require you to ask their permission” (sga_flashfic LJ, 21 Aug. 2006, emphasis added). Whereas most announcement posts would only gather a few comments, this reached more than a hundred responses within hours, mostly complaints. Even though the community administrators quickly backtracked and posted a revision of the challenge not 12 hours later, the fannish LiveJournal sphere debated the challenge for days, reaching far beyond the specific fandom of Stargate Atlantis to discuss the ethical questions surrounding fannish appropriation and remix. At the center of the debate were the last eight words: “we won’t require you to ask their permission.” By encouraging fans to effectively write fan fiction of fan fiction and by not requiring permission, the moderators had violated an unwritten norm within this fannish community. Like all fan communities, western media fans have developed internal rules covering everything from what to include in a story header to how long to include a spoiler warning following aired episodes (for a definition and overview of western media fandom, see Coppa). In this example, the mods violated the fannish prohibition against the borrowing of original characters, settings, plot points, or narrative structures from other fan writers without permission—even though as fan fiction, the source of the inspiration engages in such borrowing itself. These kinds of normative rules can be altered, of course, but any change requires long and involved discussions. In this essay, we look at various debates that showcase how this fan community—media fandom on LiveJournal—creates and enforces but also discusses and changes its normative behavior. Fan fiction authors’ desire to prevent their work from being remixed may seem hypocritical, but we argue that underlying these conversations are complex negotiations of online privacy and control, affective aesthetics, and the value of fan labor. This is not to say that all fan communities address issues of remixing in the same way media fandom at this point in time did nor to suggest that they should; rather, we want to highlight a specific community’s internal ethics, the fervor with which members defend their rules, and the complex arguments that evolve from all sides when rules are questioned. Moreover, we suggest that these conversations offer insight into the specific relation many fan writers have to their stories and how it may differ from a more universal authorial affect. In order to fully understand the underlying motivations and the community ethos that spawned the sga_flashfic debates, we first want to differentiate between forms of unauthorised (re)uses and the legal, moral, and artistic concerns they create. Only with a clear definition of copyright infringement and plagiarism, as well as a clear understanding of who is affected (and in what ways) in any of these cases, can we fully understand the social and moral intersection of fan remixing of fan fiction. Only when sidestepping the legal and economic concerns surrounding remix can we focus on the ethical intricacies between copyright holders and fan writers and, more importantly, within fan communities. Fan communities differ greatly over time, between fandoms, and even depending on their central social interfaces (such as con-based zines, email-based listservs, journal-based online communities, etc.), and as a result they also develop a diverse range of internal community rules (Busse and Hellekson, “Works”; Busker). Much strife is caused when different traditions and their associated mores intersect. We’d argue, however, that the issues in the case of the Stargate Atlantis Remix Challenge were less the confrontation of different communities and more the slowly changing attitudes within one. In fact, looking at media fandom today, we may already be seeing changed attitudes—even as the debates continue over remix permission and unauthorised use. Why Remixes Are Not Copyright Infringement In discussing the limits of unauthorised use, it is important to distinguish plagiarism and copyright violation from forms of remix. While we are more concerned with the ethical issues surrounding plagiarism, we want to briefly address copyright infringement, simply because it often gets mixed into the ethics of remixes. Copyright is strictly defined as a matter of law; in many of the online debates in media fandom, it is often further restricted to U.S. Law, because a large number of the source texts are owned by U.S. companies. According to the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), Congress has the power to secure an “exclusive Right” “for limited Times.” Given that intellectual property rights have to be granted and are limited, legal scholars read this statute as a delicate balance between offering authors exclusive rights and allowing the public to flourish by building on these works. Over the years, however, intellectual property rights have been expanded and increased at the expense of the public commons (Lessig, Boyle). The main exception to this exclusive right is the concept of “fair use,” defined as use “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research” (§107). Case law circumscribes the limits of fair use, distinguishing works that are merely “derivative” from those that are “transformative” and thus add value (Chander and Sunder, Fiesler, Katyal, McCardle, Tushnet). The legal status of fan fiction remains undefined without a specific case that would test the fair use doctrine in regards to fan fiction, yet fair use and fan fiction advocates argue that fan fiction should be understood as eminently transformative and thus protected under fair use. The nonprofit fan advocacy group, the Organization for Transformative Works, in fact makes clear its position by including the legal term in their name, reflecting a changing understanding of both fans and scholars. Why Remixes Are Not Plagiarism Whereas copyright infringement is a legal concept that punishes violations between fan writers and commercial copyright holders, plagiarism instead is defined by the norms of the audience for which a piece is written: definitions of plagiarism thus differ from academic to journalist to literary contexts. Within fandom one of the most blatant (and most easily detectable) forms of plagiarism is when a fan copies another work wholesale and publishes it under their own name, either within the same fandom or by simply searching and replacing names to make it fit another fandom. Other times, fan writers may take selections of published pro or fan fiction and insert them into their works. Within fandom accusations of plagiarism are taken seriously, and fandom as a whole polices itself with regards to plagiarism: the LiveJournal community stop_plagiarism, for example, was created in 2005 specifically to report and pursue accusations of plagiarism within fandom. The community keeps a list of known plagiarisers that include the names of over 100 fan writers. Fan fiction plagiarism can only be determined on a case-by-case basis—and fans remain hypervigilant simply because they are all too often falsely accused as merely plagiarising when instead they are interpreting, translating, and transforming. There is another form of fannish offense that does not actually constitute plagiarism but is closely connected to it, namely the wholesale reposting of stories with attributions intact. This practice is frowned upon for two main reasons. Writers like to maintain at least some control over their works, often deriving from anxieties over being able to delete one’s digital footprint if desired or necessary. Archiving stories without authorial permission strips authors of this ability. More importantly, media fandom is a gift economy, in which labor is not reimbursed economically but rather rewarded with feedback (such as comments and kudos) and the growth of a writer’s reputation (Hellekson, Scott). Hosting a story in a place where readers cannot easily give thanks and feedback to the author, the rewards for the writer’s fan labor are effectively taken from her. Reposting thus removes the story from the fannish gift exchange—or, worse, inserts the archivist in lieu of the author as the recipient of thanks and comments. Unauthorised reposting is not plagiarism, as the author’s name remains attached, but it tends to go against fannish mores nonetheless as it deprives the writer of her “payment” of feedback and recognition. When Copyright Holders Object to Fan Fiction A small group of professional authors vocally proclaim fan fiction as unethical, illegal, or both. In her “Fan Fiction Rant” Robin Hobbs declares that “Fan fiction is to writing what a cake mix is to gourmet cooking” and then calls it outright theft: “Fan fiction is like any other form of identity theft. It injures the name of the party whose identity is stolen.” Anne Rice shares her feelings about fan fiction on her web site with a permanent message: “I do not allow fan fiction. The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters. It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes.” Diana Gabaldon calls fan fiction immoral and describes, “it makes me want to barf whenever I’ve inadvertently encountered some of it involving my characters.” Moreover, in a move shared by other anti-fan fiction writers, she compares her characters to family members: “I wouldn’t like people writing sex fantasies for public consumption about me or members of my family—why would I be all right with them doing it to the intimate creations of my imagination and personality?” George R.R. Martin similarly evokes familial intimacy when he writes, “My characters are my children, I have been heard to say. I don’t want people making off with them.” What is interesting in these—and other authors’—articulations of why they disapprove of fan fiction of their works is that their strongest and ultimate argument is neither legal nor economic reasoning but an emotional plea: being a good fan means coloring within the lines laid out by the initial creator, putting one’s toys back exactly as one found them, and never ever getting creative or transformative with them. Many fan fiction writers respect these wishes and do not write in book fandoms where the authors have expressed their desires clearly. Sometimes entire archives respect an author’s desires: fanfiction.net, the largest repository of fic online, removed all stories based on Rice’s work and does not allow any new ones to be posted. However, fandom is a heterogeneous culture with no centralised authority, and it is not difficult to find fic based on Rice’s characters and settings if one knows where to look. Most of these debates are restricted to book fandoms, likely for two reasons: (1) film and TV fan fiction alters the medium, so that there is no possibility that the two works might be mistaken for one another; and (2) film and TV authorship tends to be collaborative and thus lowers the individual sense of ownership (Mann, Sellors). How Fannish Remixes Are like Fan Fiction Most fan fiction writers strongly dismiss accusations of plagiarism and theft, two accusations that all too easily are raised against fan fiction and yet, as we have shown, such accusations actually misdefine terms. Fans extensively debate the artistic values of fan fiction, often drawing from classical literary discussions and examples. Clearly echoing Wilde’s creed that “there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book,” Kalichan, for example, argues in one LJ conversation that “whenever I hear about writers asserting that other writing is immoral, I become violently ill. Aside from this, morality & legality are far from necessarily connected. Lots of things are immoral and legal, illegal and moral and so on, in every permutation imaginable, so let’s just not confuse the two, shall we” (Kalichan LJ, 3 May 2010). Aja Romano concludes an epic list of remixed works ranging from the Aeneid to The Wind Done Gone, from All’s Well That Ends Well to Wicked with a passionate appeal to authors objecting to fan fiction: the story is not defined by the barriers you place around it. The moment you gave it to us, those walls broke. You may hate the fact people are imagining more to your story than what you put there. But if I were you, I’d be grateful that I got the chance to create a story that has a culture around it, a story that people want to keep talking about, reworking, remixing, living in, fantasizing about, thinking about, writing about. (Bookshop LJ, 3 May 2010)Many fan writers view their own remixes as part of a larger cultural movement that appropriates found objects and culturally relevant materials to create new things, much like larger twentieth century movements that include Dada and Pop Art, as well as feminist and postcolonial challenges to the literary canon. Finally, fan fiction partakes in 21st century ideas of social anarchy to create a cultural creative commons of openly shared ideas. Fan Cupidsbow describes strong parallels and cross-connection between all sorts of different movements, from Warhol to opensource, DeviantArt to AMV, fanfiction to mashups, sampling to critique and review. All these things are about how people are interacting with technology every day, and not just digital technology, but pens and paper and clothes and food fusions and everything else. (Cupidsbow LJ, 20 May 2009) Legally, of course, these reuses of collectively shared materials are often treated quite differently, which is why fan fiction advocates often maintain that all remixes be treated equally—regardless of whether their source text is film, TV, literature, or fan fiction. The Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works, for example, does not distinguish in its Content and Abuse Policy section between commercial and fan works in regard to plagiarism and copyright. Returning to the initial case of the Stargate Atlantis Mission Report Challenge, we can thus see how the moderator clearly positions herself within a framework that considers all remixes equally remixable. Even after changing the guidelines to require permission for the remixing of existing fan stories, moderator Cesperanza notes that she “remain[s] philosophically committed to the idea that people have the right to make art based on other art provided that due credit is given the original artist” (sga_flashfic LJ, 21 Aug. 2006). Indeed, other fans agree with her position in the ensuing discussions, drawing attention to the hypocrisy of demanding different rules for what appears to be the exact same actions: “So explain to me how you can defend fanfiction as legitimate derivative work if it’s based on one type of source material (professional writing or TV shows), yet decry it as ‘stealing’ and plagiarism if it’s based on another type of source material (fanfiction)” (Marythefan LJ, 21 Aug. 2006). Many fans assert that all remixes should be tolerated by the creators of their respective source texts—be they pro or fan. Fans expect Rowling to be accepting of Harry Potter’s underage romance with a nice and insecure Severus Snape, and they expect Matthew Weiner to be accepting of stories that kill off Don Draper and have his (ex)wives join a commune together. So fans should equally accept fan fiction that presents the grand love of Rodney McKay and John Sheppard, the most popular non-canonical fan fiction pairing on Stargate Atlantis, to be transformed into an abusive and manipulative relationship or rewritten with one of them dying tragically. Lydiabell, for example, argues that “there’s [no]thing wrong with creating a piece of art that uses elements of another work to create something new, always assuming that proper credit is given to the original... even if your interpretation is at odds with everything the original artist wanted to convey” (Lydiabell LJ, 22 Aug. 2006). Transforming works can often move them into territory that is critical of the source text, mocks the source text, rearranges relationships, and alters characterisations. It is here that we reach the central issue of this article: many fans indeed do view intrafandom interactions as fundamentally different to their interactions with professional authors or commercial entertainment companies. While everyone agrees that there are no legal, economic, or even ultimately moral arguments to be made against remixing fan fiction (because any such argument would nullify the fan’s right to create their fan fiction in the first place), the discourses against open remixing tend to revolve around community norms, politeness, and respect. How Fannish Remixes Are Not like Fan Fiction At the heart of the debate lie issues of community norms: taking another fan’s stories as the basis for one’s own fiction is regarded as a violation of manners, at least the way certain sections of the community define them. This, in fact, is not unlike the way many fan academics engage with fandom research. While it may be perfectly legal to directly cite fans’ blog posts, and while it may even be in compliance with institutional ethical research requirements (such as Internal Review Boards at U.S. universities), the academic fan writing about her own community may indeed choose to take extra precautions to protect herself and that community. As Kristina Busse and Karen Hellekson have argued, fan studies often exists at the intersection of language and social studies, and thus written text may simultaneously be treated as artistic works and as utterances by human subjects (“Identity”). In this essay (and elsewhere), we thus limit direct linking into fannish spaces, instead giving site, date, and author, and we have consent from all fans we cite in this essay. The community of fans who write fic in a particular fandom is relatively small, and most of them are familiar with each other, or can trace a connection via one or two degrees of separation only. While writing fan fiction about Harry Potter may influence the way you and your particular circle of friends interpret the novels, it is unlikely to affect the overall reception of the work. During the remix debate, fan no_pseud articulates the differing power dynamic: When someone bases fanfic on another piece of fanfic, the balance of power in the relationship between the two things is completely different to the relationship between a piece of fanfic and the canon source. The two stories have exactly equal authority, exactly equal validity, exactly equal ‘reality’ in fandom. (nopseud LJ, 21 Aug. 2006) Within fandom, there are few stories that have the kind of reach that professional fiction does, and it is just as likely that a fan will come across an unauthorised remix of a piece of fan fiction as the original piece itself. In that way, the reception of fan fiction is more fragile, and fans are justifiably anxious about it. In a recent conversation about proper etiquette within Glee fandom, fan writer flaming_muse articulates her reasons for expecting different behavior from fandom writers who borrow ideas from each other: But there’s a huge difference between fanfic of media and fanfic of other fanfic authors. Part of it is a question of the relationship of the author to the source material … but part of it is just about not hurting or diminishing the other creative people around you. We aren’t hurting Glee by writing fic in their ‘verse; we are hurting other people if we write fanfic of fanfic. We’re taking away what’s special about their particular stories and all of the work they put into them. (Stoney321 LJ, 12 Feb. 2012)Flaming_muse brings together several concepts but underlying all is a sense of community. Thus she equates remixing within the community without permission as a violation of fannish etiquette. The sense of community also plays a role in another reason given by fans who prefer permission, which is the actual ease of getting it. Many fandoms are fairly small communities, which makes it more possible to ask for permission before doing a translation, adaptation, or other kind of rewrite of another person’s fic. Often a fan may have already given feedback to the story or shared some form of conversation with the writer, so that requesting permission seems fairly innocuous. Moreover, fandom is a community based on the economy of gifting and sharing (Hellekson), so that etiquette becomes that much more important. Unlike pro authors who are financially reimbursed for their works, feedback is effectively a fan writer’s only payment. Getting comments, kudos, or recommendations for their stories are ways in which readers reward and thank the writers for their work. Many fans feel that a gift economy functions only through the goodwill of all its participants, which remixing without permission violates. How Fan Writing May Differ From Pro Writing Fans have a different emotional investment in their creations, only partially connected to writing solely for love (as opposed to professional writers who may write for love but also write for their livelihood in the best-case scenarios). One fan, who writes both pro and fan fiction, describes her more distanced emotional involvement with her professional writing as follows, When I’m writing for money, I limit my emotional investment in the material I produce. Ultimately what I am producing does not belong to me. Someone else is buying it and I am serving their needs, not my own. (St_Crispins LJ, 27 Aug. 2006)The sense of writing for oneself as part of a community also comes through in a comment by pro and fan writer Matociquala, who describes the specificity and often quite limited audience of fan fiction as follows: Fanfiction is written in the expectation of being enjoyed in an open membership but tight-knit community, and the writer has an expectation of being included in the enjoyment and discussion. It is the difference, in other words, between throwing a fair on the high road, and a party in a back yard. Sure, you might be able to see what’s going on from the street, but you’re expected not to stare. (Matociquala LJ, 18 May 2006)What we find important here is the way both writers seem to suggest that fan fiction allows for a greater intimacy and immediacy on the whole. So while not all writers write to fulfill (their own or other’s) emotional and narrative desires, this seems to be more acceptable in fan fiction. Intimacy, i.e., the emotional and, often sexual, openness and vulnerability readers and writers exhibit in the stories and surrounding interaction, can thus constitute a central aspect for readers and writers alike. Again, none of these aspects are particular to fan fiction alone, but, unlike in much other writing, they are such a central component that the stories divorced from their context—textual, social, and emotional—may not be fully comprehensible. In a discussion several years ago, Ellen Fremedon coined the term Id Vortex, by which she refers to that very tailored and customised writing that caters to the writers’ and/or readers’ kinks, that creates stories that not only move us emotionally because we already care about the characters but also because it uses tropes, characterisations, and scenes that appeal very viscerally: In fandom, we’ve all got this agreement to just suspend shame. I mean, a lot of what we write is masturbation material, and we all know it, and so we can’t really pretend that we’re only trying to write for our readers’ most rarefied sensibilities, you know? We all know right where the Id Vortex is, and we have this agreement to approach it with caution, but without any shame at all. (Ellen Fremedon LJ, 2 Dec. 2004)Writing stories for a particular sexual kink may be the most obvious way fans tailor stories to their own (or others’) desires, but in general, fan stories often seem to be more immediate, more intimate, more revealing than most published writing. This attachment is only strengthened by fans’ immense emotional attachment to the characters, as they may spend years if not decades rewatching their show, discussing all its details, and reading and writing stories upon stories. From Community to Commons These norms and mores continue to evolve as fannish activity becomes more and more visible to the mainstream, and new generations of fans enter fandom within a culture where media is increasingly spreadable across social networks and all fannish activity is collectively described and recognised as “fandom” (Jenkins, Ford, and Green). The default mode of the mainstream often treats “found” material as disseminable, and interfaces encourage such engagement by inviting users to “share” on their collection of social networks. As a result, many new fans see remixing as not only part of their fannish right, but engage in their activity on platforms that make sharing with or without attribution both increasingly easy and normative. Tumblr is the most recent and obvious example of a platform in which reblogging other users’ posts, with or without commentary, is the normative mode. Instead of (or in addition to) uploading one’s story to an archive, a fan writer might post it on Tumblr and consider reblogs as another form of feedback. In fact, our case study and its associated differentiation of legal, moral, and artistic justifications for and against remixing fan works, may indeed be an historical artifact in its own right: media fandom as a small and well-defined community of fans with a common interest and a shared history is the exception rather than the norm in today’s fan culture. When access to stories and other fans required personal initiation, it was easy to teach and enforce a community ethos. Now, however, fan fiction tops Google searches for strings that include both Harry and Draco or Spock and Uhura, and fan art is readily reblogged by sites for shows ranging from MTV’s Teen Wolf to NBC’s Hannibal. Our essay thus must be understood as a brief glimpse into the internal debates of media fans at a particular historical juncture: showcasing not only the clear separation media fan writers make between professional and fan works, but also the strong ethos that online communities can hold and defend—if only for a little while. References Boyle, James. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Ithaca: Yale University Press, 2008. Busker, Rebecca Lucy. “On Symposia: LiveJournal and the Shape of Fannish Discourse.” Transformative Works and Cultures 1 (2008). http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/49. Busse, Kristina, and Karen Hellekson. “Work in Progress.” In Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, eds., Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2006. 5–40. Busse, Kristina, and Karen Hellekson. “Identity, Ethics, and Fan Privacy.” In Katherine Larsen and Lynn Zubernis, eds., Fan Culture: Theory/Practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012. 38-56. Chander, Anupam, and Madhavi Sunder. “Everyone’s a Superhero: A Cultural Theory of ‘Mary Sue’ Fan Fiction as Fair Use.” California Law Review 95 (2007): 597-626. Coppa, Francesca. “A Brief History of Media Fandom.” In Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, eds., Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2006. 41–59. Fiesler, Casey. “Everything I Need to Know I Learned from Fandom: How Existing Social Norms Can Help Shape the Next Generation of User-Generated Content.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 10 (2008): 729-62. Gabaldon, Diana. “Fan Fiction and Moral Conundrums.” Voyages of the Artemis. Blog. 3 May 2010. 7 May 2010 http://voyagesoftheartemis.blogspot.com/2010/05/fan-fiction-and-moral-conundrums.html. Hellekson, Karen. “A Fannish Field of Value: Online Fan Gift Culture.” Cinema Journal 48.4 (2009): 113–18. Hobbs, Robin. “The Fan Fiction Rant.” Robin Hobb’s Home. 2005. 14 May 2006 http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2013. Katyal, Sonia. “Performance, Property, and the Slashing of Gender in Fan Fiction.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law 14 (2006): 463-518. Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in a Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2008. Mann, Denise. “It’s Not TV, It’s Brand Management.” In Vicki Mayer, Miranda Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, eds., Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries. New York: Routledge, 2009. 99-114. Martin, George R.R. “Someone is Angry on the Internet.” LiveJournal. 7 May 2010. 15 May 2013. http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html. McCardle, Meredith. “Fandom, Fan Fiction and Fanfare: What’s All the Fuss?” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 9 (2003): 443-68. Rice, Anne. “Important Message From Anne on ‘Fan Fiction’.” n.d. 15 May 2013. http://www.annerice.com/readerinteraction-messagestofans.html. Scott, Suzanne. “Repackaging Fan Culture: The Regifting Economy of Ancillary Content Models.” Transformative Works and Cultures 3 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.3983/twc.2009.0150. Sellors, C. Paul. Film Authorship: Auteurs and Other Myths. London: Wallflower, 2010. Tushnet, Rebecca. “Copyright Law, Fan Practices, and the Rights of the Author.” In Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, eds., Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press, 2007. 60-71.

This research aims to investigate the relationship between artists and patrons and the dynamics of production, circulation, use of paintings in reference to Sardinia in the late fifteenth-early sixteenth century in its relations with Catalonia. The primary objective is to search out new data on episodes and steps considered fundamental in the art, the knowledge of which is limited by the lack of documentation and the small number of surviving works; complementary objective is to try to understand what was the nature of the artist-client relationship and how the mechanisms of production of the works and their circulation were configured and according to which patterns were transposed by the users. To go back to the circumstances that led to the creation of the art work is necessary to refer to a set of data that go beyond the canonical commission contracts of works. Any news about the actions, the movements and contacts of the patrons, the artistic operators, suppliers of raw materials (and therefore of producers and merchants) was (re)read and (re)analyzed to identify new elements that could expand the limited knowledge in our possession.

Il Seicento è stato per l’Europa il “secolo del teatro”, per la quantità e qualità delle opere drammatiche e per la ricchezza delle invenzioni sceniche. Studiarlo, in particolare in area francese e spagnola alla luce della compenetrazione tra Classicismo, Manierismo e Barocco, significa discutere e approfondire alcuni nodi tematici essenziali non solo alla conoscenza di un’epoca storico-letteraria ma alla stessa modernità. Questo volume, curato da Barbara Innocenti (cui si deve anche la trascrizione di un originale documento sulla morte di Luigi XIV rinvenuto negli archivi pistoiesi), grazie alla partecipazione di noti specialisti che si sono cimentati nella lettura di testi esemplari nel quadro della complessiva storiografi a teatrale e di un ricco apparato iconografico si presenta dunque con il respiro comparatistico necessario. Gli approfondimenti su grandissimi autori (in particolare Molière, Tirso de Molina, l’‘effetto Tasso’ nella letteratura francese…) favoriscono confronti e intersezioni che consentono di delineare un orizzonte di cultura “europea”, arricchito, sul piano delle traduzioni e delle messe in scena, da un creativo dialogo con la contemporaneità. Il “Secolo d’Oro” oltrepassa insomma i propri confini, attraversando tempi, aree geografi che, letterature.

This chapter turns from the way Pausanias provokes formative experiences to consider his work as an object in its own right. It describes how stories fit within the Periegesis’ textual architecture by introducing the analytical framework of ‘mythographic topography’. This is the idea that form and content are inextricably bound up in each other when each passage of text (topos) is also a place on the map (topos). There are three studies in this chapter: an analysis of the function of cross-references in sorting content hierarchically and establishing authenticity; a survey of the ways Pausanias deals with heroes with more than one tomb; and a reading of the story of Hyrnetho’s death which illustrates the lure of local perspectives in this mythographic archive.