From AllenAmet@aol.com Sun Mar 21 13:20:47 1999 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id NAA10388 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:20:46 -0800 From: AllenAmet@aol.com Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id NAA23150 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:20:45 -0800 Received: from AllenAmet@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv19.3) id dNXKa04981 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:20:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:20:30 EST To: classics@u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re, internet pollution and source criticism Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 In a message dated 99-03-21 16:04:12 EST, Lisa writes: << Interesting problem and one that reminds me that I have been wondering about the origins of source criticism as a discipline, the historical context thereof. Are there particular events or situations from which it clearly can be said to have sprung. I suspect religious differences must have led to it, but cannot put my finger on a particular event or debate. So I may be off base. >> ********* perhaps you are thinking of the centuries-later criticism of the "Donation of Constantine" and the observation that it was a forgery? Allen Koenigsberg BC .