Aeon email newsletters are issued by the not-for-profit, registered charity Aeon Media Group Ltd (Australian Business Number 80 612 076 614).
– Feud criminal proceedings and social control An analysis of the trials and criminal proceedings that conditioned the new form of punitive justice.
Through this, it will be possible to identify the actions, consequences and protagonist of the feud in the context of proceedings that not only can no longer convey the older forms of mediation and feud, but are illustrated in a negative way.
The system of feud was intimately connected to the political dimension and to the introduction, in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of Roman-canonical procedures which had the aim of incorporating the conflict system of feud, until then mainly governed by custom; into procedural practices in order mitigate its bloodiest consequences.
Feud, revenge and legal process were all part of a complex system of regulation of conflicts (Stein 1984, Berman 1983).But there still remains to trace the crucial transition from customary practices mainly handled by the community (prevailing in the early medieval age) to practices managed by professionals () and the procedures successively worked out by them.Therefore, it is important to take into account the research conducted on single European areas and for different historical periods, especially for the early Middle Ages, the Middle Ages, the Modern and Contemporary Age, and finally the various disciplines used.A reconstruction of the concept of feud and revenge can also be very helpful in understanding other forms of narratives on the topic, such as the arts, literature and architecture.d) The relationship between judicial practices and the feud acquires interesting relevance both in customary systems and in systems governed by the legal process.e) The following stage, marked by the affirmation of inquisitorial procedures, and in which almost everywhere the system based on feuds and its ancient procedures was weakened, has not been sufficiently studied.The different forms of affirmation and dominance of state realities were crucial to the subsequent development of the feud during the modern era (and in some cases even in contemporary times), Tilly 2005).The conference intends to define firstly a general objective and then some more specific goals.The scientific purposes lie primarily in the deconstruction and the subsequent reassessment of a historical process that the documentary sources show on the narrative level in a distinctly negative and misleading way.The eventual peace imposed by the judiciary body is not able to rebuild the social frame shattered by conflicts and retaliations.It is the very fact that we cannot live in the present—that the present for us is always part of an unfinished project—which converts our lives from chronicles to narratives. But here is not the place to go over old debates, for as Gillian Overing stated more than ten years ago at the 1991 convention of the Modern Language Association, “we are changed by this new work,” which “has, indeed, arrived.” While Theory, with a capital “T,” already has a long history, which some trace to Plato and others to 1966 when Jacques Derrida presented a paper, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” at a conference at Johns Hopkins University, it has not, in fact, exhausted itself and was never and can never be just “one thing” (or “empire,” as recently argued) to be either embraced or rejected without equivocation. We can simply run out of particular styles of thinking, as our situation changes.” Theory will always be with us, if we prefer the examined life (and how could we not?