Историјскоправна анализа Антифонтових говора

Упркос чињеници да је Антифонт био један од водећих интелектуалаца, истакнути софиста и пионир форензичног говора који је дао значајан допринос развоју реторике у V веку пре н. е. у Атини, његова дела нису довољно проучена. Из тог разлога пратила га је судбина „подељене личности“, па су поједини аутори који су се бавили анализом његовог рада направили разлику између: Атињанина оратора (логографа) познатог по говорима о убиствима које је писао за своје клијенте на суду и политичком дисидентству (олигархиста у демократској Атини); аутора „Тетралогија“ који је био Јонац или је живео касније у односу на оратора; и софисте, чији је став био радикалан (анархичан) поглед на људско друштво. Пошто је отклоњена сумња да је Антифонт оратор био и аутор „Тетралогија“, остала је подела на тзв. сепаратисте који праве разлику између говорника и софисте и тзв. унитариста који се залажу за то да је комплетан опус Антифонта плод рада једног човека. У складу са циљем рада – анализом Антифонтових говора, расправи о говорима посвећеним убиствима приступа се с правноисторијског аспекта, сагледавањем различитих одређења Антифонтовог дела. Логографи, од којих је први био Антифонт, писали су говоре за клијенте, а они су их учили напамет и изговарали на суду. Сви форензични говори написани су да би се јавно усмено излагали. За разлику од њих, много мањи број говора писан је да би се читао и у ту групу спадају „Тетралогије“, хипотетички судски говори који садрже одређене аргументе карактеристичне за форензичне говоре. Антифонтова велика снага, посматрајући га као логографа, била је аргументација, селекција и композиција, а начин на који је флексибилно постављао аргументе чинио је његове говоре најбољим за клијенте. Традиционалну поделу говора на пет делова (увод (proemium), опис проблема (narratio), доказивање аргументима (agōnes, probatio), додатне напомене (parékbasis) и закључак (epίlogos, peroratio)) Антифонт је поштовао у својим говорима, с тим да је њихову презентацију подешавао у складу са потребама конкретног случаја.Despite the fact that Antiphon was one of the leading intellectuals, a prominent sophist and a pioneer of forensic speech that has made a significant contribution to the development of rhetoric in the fifth century BC in Athens, his works have not been sufficiently studied. For this reason, he was followed by the fate of “split personality”, and some of the authors who have dealt with the analysis of his work made a distinction between: Athenian the Orator (logographer), known for speeches about homicides that he wrote for his clients in court, and political dissent (supporting oligarchy in democratic Athens); the author of “Tetralogy” who was an Ionian or who lived later relative to the orator; and the Sophist, who had a radical (anarchic) view of human society. Having removed doubts that Antiphon the Orator was the author of “Tetralogies”, what remains is the division to the so-called separatists who make a distinction between the orator and the Sophist and the so-called unitarian who stands for the idea that the entire Antiphon’s oeuvre is the work of one man. In accordance with the purpose of the paper - the analysis Of Antiphon’s speeches, a discussion about the speeches on murders, the approach applied is one from the legal and historian aspects, by analysing various definitions of Antiphon’s oeuvre. Logographers, the first of whom was Antiphon, wrote speeches for clients, who then learned them by heart and presented them in court. All forensic speeches were written to be orally publicly presented. In contrast, a much smaller number of speeches were written in order to be read, and in this group are the “Tetralogies” - hypothetical court speeches containing certain arguments specific to forensic speeches. If we consider him as a logographer, Antiphon’s great power was his rationale, selection and composition, and the way in which he flexibly set arguments made his speeches best for his clients

Историјскоправна анализа Антифонтових говора

Упркос чињеници да је Антифонт био један од водећих интелектуалаца, истакнути софиста и пионир форензичног говора који је дао значајан допринос развоју реторике у V веку пре н. е. у Атини, његова дела нису довољно проучена. Из тог разлога пратила га је судбина „подељене личности“, па су поједини аутори који су се бавили анализом његовог рада направили разлику између: Атињанина оратора (логографа) познатог по говорима о убиствима које је писао за своје клијенте на суду и политичком дисидентству (олигархиста у демократској Атини); аутора „Тетралогија“ који је био Јонац или је живео касније у односу на оратора; и софисте, чији је став био радикалан (анархичан) поглед на људско друштво. Пошто је отклоњена сумња да је Антифонт оратор био и аутор „Тетралогија“, остала је подела на тзв. сепаратисте који праве разлику између говорника и софисте и тзв. унитариста који се залажу за то да је комплетан опус Антифонта плод рада једног човека. У складу са циљем рада – анализом Антифонтових говора, расправи о говорима посвећеним убиствима приступа се с правноисторијског аспекта, сагледавањем различитих одређења Антифонтовог дела. Логографи, од којих је први био Антифонт, писали су говоре за клијенте, а они су их учили напамет и изговарали на суду. Сви форензични говори написани су да би се јавно усмено излагали. За разлику од њих, много мањи број говора писан је да би се читао и у ту групу спадају „Тетралогије“, хипотетички судски говори који садрже одређене аргументе карактеристичне за форензичне говоре. Антифонтова велика снага, посматрајући га као логографа, била је аргументација, селекција и композиција, а начин на који је флексибилно постављао аргументе чинио је његове говоре најбољим за клијенте. Традиционалну поделу говора на пет делова (увод (proemium), опис проблема (narratio), доказивање аргументима (agōnes, probatio), додатне напомене (parékbasis) и закључак (epίlogos, peroratio)) Антифонт је поштовао у својим говорима, с тим да је њихову презентацију подешавао у складу са потребама конкретног случаја.Despite the fact that Antiphon was one of the leading intellectuals, a prominent sophist and a pioneer of forensic speech that has made a significant contribution to the development of rhetoric in the fifth century BC in Athens, his works have not been sufficiently studied. For this reason, he was followed by the fate of “split personality”, and some of the authors who have dealt with the analysis of his work made a distinction between: Athenian the Orator (logographer), known for speeches about homicides that he wrote for his clients in court, and political dissent (supporting oligarchy in democratic Athens); the author of “Tetralogy” who was an Ionian or who lived later relative to the orator; and the Sophist, who had a radical (anarchic) view of human society. Having removed doubts that Antiphon the Orator was the author of “Tetralogies”, what remains is the division to the so-called separatists who make a distinction between the orator and the Sophist and the so-called unitarian who stands for the idea that the entire Antiphon’s oeuvre is the work of one man. In accordance with the purpose of the paper - the analysis Of Antiphon’s speeches, a discussion about the speeches on murders, the approach applied is one from the legal and historian aspects, by analysing various definitions of Antiphon’s oeuvre. Logographers, the first of whom was Antiphon, wrote speeches for clients, who then learned them by heart and presented them in court. All forensic speeches were written to be orally publicly presented. In contrast, a much smaller number of speeches were written in order to be read, and in this group are the “Tetralogies” - hypothetical court speeches containing certain arguments specific to forensic speeches. If we consider him as a logographer, Antiphon’s great power was his rationale, selection and composition, and the way in which he flexibly set arguments made his speeches best for his clients

Seroloska dijagnostika Krimske hemoragijske groznice na Kosovu i Metohiji

In the period June-November 1995, 292 sera from 159 patients and 80 healthy persons from Kosovo and Metohia were tested for the presence of antibodies against the causative agents of Crimean hemorrhagic fever (CHF) and hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS). Diffusion precipitation test in agar gel and indirect immunofluorescence assay were used. Specific antibodies against CHF virus were found in 6.9% and against HFRS virus in 15.1 patient's sera. Antibodies against CHF virus were proved in sera of patients on the fifth day from the disease onset at the earliest. No wanted antibodies were found in healthy persons' sera. The results of sera testing on antibodies against CHF virus were analyzed in detail

Belgrade and Hantaan hantaviruses - the causative agents of severe haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in children in Serbia

During an outbreak of haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) in 1989, five children (3 girls, 2 boys, aged 6.8-16 years) with a severe form of the disease were treated; four of these were followed for 22-28 months. The main clinical features in all five patients were: fever, headache, myalgia, abdominal and back pain and vomiting; haemorrhagic syndrome was present in four children. Renal syndrome presented with severe acute renal failure in all five patients. All patients recovered. Serological confirmation by an indirect immunofluorescence assay, by enzyme immunoassay for IgM antibodies and by plaque reduction neutralization test showed infection by Belgrade virus in three and by Hantaan virus in two patients. It was not possible to differentiate these two serogroups on the basis of clinical features. This study provides futher information on the circulation of different hantaviruses causing severe HFRS in Serbia

Clinical characteristics of haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in children

From January 1988 to September 1989, seven patients (4 girls and 3 boys, aged 3-12 years) with haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) were hospitalised at the University Children's Hospital in Belgrade. In four patients the disease appeared as a family outbreak, the others were sporadic cases. In six patients the clinical presentation was suggestive of HFRS, as they had fever with headache, myalgia, sore throat and gastrointestinal illness followed by renal abnormalities. However, severe haemorrhagic syndrome with petechia, haematoma, haematemesis and melaena was present in one patient only. Renal disease presented as nephritic syndrome and/or acute renal failure. Five patients recovered after 2-3 weeks without sequellae, one patient had decreased renal function 17 months after the start of the disease and the remaining patient died. In six patients the diagnosis of HFRS was confirmed serologically by a significant rise in antibody titres against hantaviruses, while in the patient with the fatal and fulminant course of the disease, the diagnosis was established on the basis of epidemiological and autopsy findings. We suggest that children living in endemic areas who develop an ill-defined, febrile and gastrointestinal disease with renal dysfunction should be evaluated for HFRS

Epidemic hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in Yugoslavia, 1986

An epidemic of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) occurred in Yugoslavia May-November 1986; all Republics and Provinces were involved. Serum samples were received from 260 of 267 persons with symptoms clinically compatible with a diagnosis of HFRS. Presumptive infection with a hantavirus was determined serologically for 161 of these. Many patients with serious clinical pictures, including severe renal insufficiency and shock, were hospitalized; 11 died. Indirect fluorescent antibody tests with antigens of 4 hantaviruses (Hantaan, Fojnica, Puumala, and the Vranica strain of Puumala virus) showed that gt 1 serotype was circulating during this epidemic. Hantavirus antigens were detected in the lungs of 86 of 302 (28.5%) wild-caught small mammals

Isolation of a puumala-like virus from mus musculus captured in yugoslavia and its association with severe hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome

An outbreak of severe hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) occurred in 1988 in Pozarevac, Serbia, Yugoslavia. The disease was diagnosed in 4 children and I adult, and I of the children died. Rodents were captured from the same area and virus isolation attempted. A hantavirus, POZ-M1, was isolated from lung tissues of hantavirus antigen-positive Mus musculus. Serology and restriction enzyme digestion of polymerase chain reaction-amplified segments from this virus showed that it was a strain of Puumala (PUU) virus, the causative agent of nephropathia epidemica. While Clethrionomys glareolus is the major rodent host for PUU virus, these results suggest that M. musculus may also play an important role in harboring and transmitting PUU-like viruses. The serologic association of this virus with patients with severe HFRS reaffirms that PUU-like viruses may cause severe disease in addition to the generally mild form normally associated with nephropathia epidemica