@article{CarlaUhink2021,
  author    = {Carl{\`a}-Uhink, Filippo},
  title     = {Ein Schierlingsbecher oder ein Sprung ins Barathron?},
  series = {Historische Zeitschrift},
  volume    = {321},
  journal   = {Historische Zeitschrift},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  doi       = {https://doi.org/10.1515/hzhz-2021-0007},
  pages     = {296 -- 331},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Der Aufsatz behandelt die drei unterschiedlichen Hinrichtungsformen, die im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in Athen angedroht wurden: apotympanism{\´o}s , Sturz ins Barathron und Schierling. Eine solche Untersuchung verspricht reichen Aufschluss {\"u}ber die demokratische Ideologie, die entsprechenden Diskurse und ihre stetige Verst{\"a}rkung durch Prozesse und Bestrafungen. Der Aufsatz vertritt dabei die These, dass eine chronologische Analyse dieser Hinrichtungsformen einen wichtigen und bisher unerforschten Beitrag zur Debatte {\"u}ber Kontinuit{\"a}t und Diskontinuit{\"a}t in der athenischen Demokratie vor und nach der Tyrannis der Dreißig leisten kann. Er zeigt, dass die Formen, in denen die Todesstrafe angedroht wurde, das Ausmaß der {\"A}nderungen in den Diskursen in der und {\"u}ber die athenische Demokratie nach der Niederlage im Peloponnesischen Krieg erkennen l{\"a}sst. Die Unterschiede in den Exekutionsformen k{\"o}nnen einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Verst{\"a}ndnis der Verschiebung des Begriffes der „Gleichheit" vom 5. ins 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. leisten.},
  language  = {de}
}
@book{OPUS4-6412,
  title     = {Brandenburger Antike-Denkwerk : o tempora, o mores ; Relevanz und Relativierung von Wertbegriffen},
  editor    = {G{\"a}rtner, Ursula},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-183-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-57612},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {173},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Im September 2008 fand der 4. Potsdamer Lateintag statt. Er war Bestandteil des auf drei Jahre angelegten Brandenburger Antike-Denkwerks (BrAnD), das von der Robert Bosch Stiftung gef{\"o}rdert wurde. Der Band versammelt die Vortr{\"a}ge des Lateintags von Frau Prof. Dr. Chr. Kunst und Herrn Prof. Dr. M. Janka sowie eine Auswahl der Berichte zu den Schulprojekten.},
  language  = {de}
}
@book{OPUS4-63165,
  title     = {Tacitus' Wonders},
  editor    = {McNamara, James and Pag{\´a}n, Victoria Emma},
  publisher = {Bloomsbury},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-350-24172-5},
  doi       = {10.5040/9781350241763},
  pages     = {viii, 281},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This volume approaches the broad topic of wonder in the works of Tacitus, encompassing paradox, the marvellous and the admirable. Recent scholarship on these themes in Roman literature has tended to focus on poetic genres, with comparatively little attention paid to historiography: Tacitus, whose own judgments on what is worthy of note have often differed in interesting ways from the preoccupations of his readers, is a fascinating focal point for this complementary perspective. Scholarship on Tacitus has to date remained largely marked by a divide between the search for veracity - as validated by modern historiographical standards - and literary approaches, and as a result wonders have either been ignored as unfit for an account of history or have been deprived of their force by being interpreted as valid only within the text. While the modern ideal of historiographical objectivity tends to result in striving for consistent heuristic and methodological frameworks, works as varied as Tacitus' Histories, Annals and opera minora can hardly be prefaced with a statement of methodology broad enough to escape misrepresenting their diversity. In our age of specialization a streamlined methodological framework is a virtue, but it should not be assumed that Tacitus had similar priorities, and indeed the Histories and Annals deserve to be approached with openness towards the variety of perspectives that a tradition as rich as Latin historiographical prose can include within its scope. This collection proposes ways to reconcile the divide between history and historiography by exploring contestable moments in the text that challenge readers to judge and interpret for themselves, with individual chapters drawing on a range of interpretive approaches that mirror the wealth of authorial and reader-specific responses in play.},
  language  = {en}
}