Fictitious toponyms in the responsa: Bashan's ruleset revisited

Fictitious personal names and toponyms are not infrequent in legal casenotes as used for didactic purposes nowadays. There is a long tradition of fictitious names being used in the legal literature. The problem with medieval or early modern legal (here, rabbinical) responsa is that if they are used as evidence for historical purposes, as though they were chronicles, confusion may occurs. Historian Eliezer Bashan showed that this is the case, indeed, with particular reference to rabbinical responsa from the Ottoman empire where Holy Land toponyms occur. He set forth several tentative rules to decide whether a toponym is there to literally refer to the place it names, or whether, instead, the name is used fictitiously. This paper formalizes the ruleset.

L'histoire assassinee: Manfredo Tafuri and the present

Italian historian Manfredo Tafuri develops his ‘historical project’ in architecture during the 1960’s and 1970’s in three seminal books, which reach the English speaking specialist audience with a certain delay. Histories and Theories of Architecture (1968), which prepares the ground for the redefinition of a critical and independent history of architecture is first translated in English in 1979. Architecture and Utopia (Progetto e utopia, 1973) is translated in 1976, and becomes a point of reference for architectural histories and for the definition of architectural theories, mainly in the United States. The Sphere and the Labyrinth (1980), translated in 1987, is the text which formally defines and presents the ‘historical project’. Tafuri’s dense and highly politicized prose is often subjected in the English versions to numerous simplifications and reductive interpretations. Yet, the time lag and the space between languages that these translations occupy are inhabited by polemical and fertile reactions to the texts from the world of architectural design. Symptomatic of all, Aldo Rossi’s L’architecture assassinée, a rebuke in drawing to some of Tafuri’s remarks in Architecture and Utopia that seemed to suggest -but the interpretation is arguable– the ‘death’ of architecture as project (progetto). Tafuri’s texts instigate a dialogue between architectural history and practice, particularly relevant at a time in the development of the discipline when history was being redefined in its critical role as a ‘project’ –thus appropriating the active and propositional role traditionally assigned to architectural design–, while architectural design –still coping with the legacy of Modernism and with changed production systems- often found itself relegated to the paper of exhibitions, competitions and theoretical projects. This paper explores the relationship between architectural history and design in Tafuri’s work, focusing on recent reconsideration and interpretations of his work. It argues that, beyond instrumental simplifications, Tafuri’s ‘project’ remains active and essential in architecture’s critical culture today.