Tommaso affronta il tema dell’epichèia o equità principalmente nella quaestio 120 della secunda secundae della Summa Theologiae. L’aequitas è una forma di giustizia del caso concreto, che costituisce il criterio fondamentale per una valutazione adeguata degli atti umani in vista del bene di tutti e di ciascuno. Il compito dell’equità, «quasi superior regula humanorum actuum», risiede infatti nella capacità di stemperare la rigida normatività di una norma, considerando anche l’intentio profonda della stessa lex posita. Nella misura in cui si rivela nella creatura razionale quale riflesso analogico dell’aequitas del Creatore, l’equità assume anche una dimensione teologica. St. Thomas deals with the theme of the epichèia or equity in the 120 quaestio of the Summa Theologiae secunda secundae. Aequitas is a form of justice in a real case that constitutes the main criterion for a suitable evaluation of human acts in view of everyone and each right. Aequitas task, «quasi superior regula humanorum actuum», lies on the ability of overcoming the rigidness of regulations, by considering the real intentio of the same lex posita too. As it reveals itself as the analogical reflection of God’s aequitas, equity also assumes a theological dimension.

Lezione per il Corso di Alta Formazione per docenti di Scuola Superiore: Greco e Latino. Insegnare la Lingua, oggi. A.A. 2018/19, 14/03/19 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano.

Questa proposta di Unità Didattica (UD) si concentra su un aspetto ben delimitato (e quindi più facile da gestire nella programmazione), ovvero la formazione del concetto di clemenza nel pensiero politico romano, attraverso l'orazione De Marcello di Cicerone e principalmente il De clementia di Seneca. La clemenza politica, sebbene legata dall'origine all'arbitrio di un monarca assoluto, non ha perso del tutto la sua ragion d'essere neppure nelle moderne società democratiche e parlamentari, il che consente di concludere l'UD con uno stimolante percorso di attualizzazione.

Despite its enormous fame, the Nike of Samothrace remains a work of unclear interpretation. There is still discussion, animatedly, on his chronology, about the reasons for his dedication, on the structure that contained it, on his relationship with the sanctuary of Theoi Megaloi. Unfortunately, the archaeological excavations could not solve most of these questions. It seems certain, however, that the Nike was placed into a closed space, most likely a naiskos, within which the statue on its basement in the form of the bow was directed towards the heart of the sanctuary. As has happened in many other cases when discussing the ways of perception in the Greek and Roman world, the distance with the modern visual system, which rests on different parameters, forged during the Italian Renaissance, is clear. Most likely, Nike was not visible from the outside, and in any case it did not dominate the surrounding environment, as so often assumed by imagining that it was visible even from the sea: its relationship with nature was non-existent. With reference to the reasons for the dedication, the hypothesis that at the moment seems more persuasive to me is that offered by Olga Palagia: it is a Roman votive offering following the capture of Perseus, king of the Mace- donians, his family and part of his treasure in Samothrace, where he had taken refuge. It is conceivable that the dedication was due to the praetor Gnaeus Octavius who, for his victory over Perseus, celebrated a naval triumph in Rome, the day after the sensational triumph of Aemilius Paulus, which lasted three days. The Nike was placed on a hill on which there were some important monuments dedicated by Macedonian rulers, including a neorion probably built by Antigonus Gonata for his naval victory over the Ptolemaic fleet in Kos, and a tall column with an honorary statue, dedicated to Philip V. Nike seems to turn its back on these monuments, thus declaring the definitive defeat of the Antigonids. In the second part of this work the reasons for which the Romans had in the late Republican age a special interest for the sanctuary of Samothrace, one of the main ones in the Mediterranean, equal in importance to Delphi, are discussed. The common denominator is the cult of the Penates who, according to the tradition, were of Samothracian origin, and then transferred from Dardanus to Troy, and from Aeneas to Italy, or remained in Samothrace, where Aeneas, fled from Troy in flames, obtained them during his stay on the island along his journey to the Latium coast. Naturally, the identification of the Penates with the Theoi Megaloi of Samothrace is the result of a long gestation that passes through a previous identification of the Dioscuri with the Theoi Megaloi, and therefore of the Penates with the Dioscuri. It is likely that the legend began to assume its definitive role towards the second half of the III century B. C., when the second Punic war took a turn advantageous to the Romans. It would have originated in the same Samothrace to politically enhance the rela- tionship with Rome through the sacra transferred to Latium by Aeneas, and then to claim autonomy from Macedonia and the Seleucid interests. Rome, assuming the role of defender of the places from which derived its most precious sacred objects, could have understood the legend in an anti-Macedonian and anti-Syrian key.

In this paper I discuss the motif of the “righteous sufferer” in ancient Me- sopotamia. I take the four literary compositions directly related to this theme, namely the Sumerian A Man and His God, the Akkadian Old- and Middle-Bab- ylonian “righteous sufferer”, and the First Millennium Ludlul bēl nēmeqi as a starting point. For each one of the compositions, I analyse the general struc- ture and thematic focus, and bring them into relation with the other texts of the group so as to identify common patterns and distinctive innovations. The way the “righteous sufferer” motif is used reflects changes in the society and religion over time. In the specific, I discuss the figure of the sufferer, the holistic perception of sufferance, and the shift in the cause of the sufferer’s distress from the desertion of the personal god to the wrath of Marduk. I deal with specific topics as well such as the role of female member of the family and the motif of the “righteous sufferer” in letters. In the conclusion, I wrap up the relationship between the four composi- tions and advance further considerations on the diffusion of the “righteous sufferer” literary motif in the Ancient Near East. In questo articolo affronto il motivo del “giusto sofferente” nell’antica Mesopotamia, partendo dall’analisi delle quattro composizioni letterarie di- rettamente legate a questo tema, ovvero il testo sumerico Un uomo e il suo dio, e i testi accadici del “giusto sofferente” paleo- e medio-babilonese, e la composizione del i millennio Ludlul bēl nēmeqi. Per ogni composizione discuto la struttura generale e gli aspetti tematici e li metto in relazione con quelli degli altri testi evidenziando motivi comuni e innovazioni. La maniera in cui il tema del “giusto sofferente” è declinato nelle diverse composizioni riflette i cambiamenti intercorsi nel tempo sul piano sociale e religioso. In generale discuto la figura del “sofferente” in seno alla sua cultura, la percezione olistica della malattia e della sofferenza, e l’evoluzione nella causa del male patito dal sofferente, dall’abbandono del “dio personale” del testo più antico all’ira del dio Marduk dei testi successivi. Affronto anche argomenti specifici come il ruolo dei membri femminili della famiglia e l’uso del motivo del “giusto sofferente” nelle lettere. Nelle conclusioni discuto la relazione che intercorre tra le diverse com- posizioni e presento alcune considerazioni sulla diffusione del motivo lette- rario del “giusto sofferente” nel Vicino Oriente antico. KEYWORDS Mesopotamia, giusto sofferente, letteratura sapienziale, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, lamentazioni Mesopotamia, righteous sufferer, wisdom literature, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, la- mentations

Keywords: Righteous Sufferer, Job, Akkadian, Sumerian