Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio State University, 1986. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 153-154). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

Johann Sebastian Bach is credited with writing over 300 cantatas. Sacred cantatas comprise most of that repertory, but there are just under forty known secular cantatas composed by Bach. About half of these secular cantatas were written to celebrate a person’s birthday. This thesis will attempt to provide a view of the life of the historical figures for which the birthday cantatas were written, reflections of the personality of the individual in the cantata, Bach’s relationship to the recipient, and political or social connotations associated with the work. From a study of the individuals connected with the musical work, a more thorough understanding of the time period in which Bach lived and worked may be gained. This in turn will provide a more complete understanding of Bach’s birthday cantatas. This thesis will not address recipients of name day cantatas nor will it address recipients of birthday cantatas that were not fully preserved. These are the historical figures and works that will be examined: Duke Christian of Saxe-Weißenfels, including references to Dukes Wilhelm Ernst and Ernst August of Saxe-Weimar, Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208; Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Köthen, Durchlauchtster Leopold, BWV 173a; Crown Prince Friedrich Christian of Saxony, Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213; Maria Joseph, Archduchess of Austria, Electress of Saxony, Queen of Poland, Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten, BWV 214; and Augustus III, Elector of Saxony, King of Poland Schleicht, spielende Wellen, BWV 206.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2006-06-23Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:07:48Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 barnabe_le_me_assis.pdf: 1081865 bytes, checksum: 94a1f842970e33f260ef1ade9b1cddd0 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / No primeiro livro de sua obra, o historiador romano Lívio se dedica ao período lendário da fundação de Roma e ao período monárquico que se sucede. A publicação deste volume ocorre paralelamente aos primeiros anos do principado de Augusto. Ao caracterizar sua época como um período de decadência da sociedade, o historiador incita seus contemporâneos a recuperarem o respeito às antigas tradições através da sua história de Roma. Esta pesquisa visa analisar a construção das personagens históricas dos reis e identificar as influências do presente do historiador na sua composição, principalmente no que tange à defesa de um modelo de identidade romana calcado nas tradições do mos maiorum. / In his first book, the Roman historian Livy dedicates himself to the legendary period of the foundation of Rome and to the monarchic period that follows on. The publication of this volume takes place in the first years of Augustus' principality. In characterizing his age as a period of society decadence, the historian incites his contemporaries to recover the respect for the old traditions through the history of Rome. This research aims to analyze the construction of historical characters of kings and identify the influences of the historian's present in its composition, especially regarding the defense of a model of Roman identity based on the traditions of the mos maiorum.

As early as Tacitus, Livian scholarship has struggled to resolve the "Livian paradox," the conflict between Livy's support of the Roman Republic and his overt approval of Augustus, who brought about the end of the Republic. This paper addresses the paradox by attempting to place Livy's writings within their proper historical and literary context. An examination of Augustus' position during the early years of Livy's writing shows that the princeps cloaked his power within the precedent of Republican autocracy, in which imperium could be unlimited in power so long as it was limited by time. As a result, although Augustus' rule would ultimately prove the end of Rome's republic, nevertheless during Livy's early writings Augustus' reign and the Republic were not antithetical. Livy's preface and early exempla further demonstrate that Livy's writings, while condemnatory of his contemporary Rome, blame Rome's decline on the character of the Roman people rather than a corruption of the Republic's political forms. In his preface Livy blames vitia, not ambitio for the universal destruction of the civil wars, while his exempla from the monarchic period and beyond show praise or condemnation of individuals for their actions, not their political offices. Livy praises most of Rome's monarchs for their individual character and their establishment of mores, while also portraying the early Romans' defense of libertas as injuriously overzealous. Ultimately, Augustus' attempts to legislate conservative, "traditional" morality made him a contemporary exemplum of Livy's ancient mores. Thus, the Livian paradox is answered by understanding that Augustus and the Republic were not antithetical, Livy was not concerned with political forms but morality, and Augustus' morality aligned with that championed by Livy.

In a 2005 work, Yasmin Syed concluded that the Aeneid created for ancient readers an idea of Romanness that was inclusive for all and not founded along strict genetic lines. Under this hypothesis, the Aeneid offers a sort of blueprint for becoming Roman, one in which biological descent from Aeneas is unnecessary. Syed reached this conclusion by analyzing themes of ethnicity and gender, in particular the ethnic other represented by the epic's female characters. This was accomplished in the manner so often chosen by Vergil scholars-by limiting analysis to the first half of the epic. The work concludes with an exhortation for others to extend the effort into Books VII-XII. Such an extension is undertaken here, but the conclusion reached is somewhat different than what Syed imagined. Instead of a blueprint for disparate people in conquered lands to become Roman, the second half of the epic empowers these groups by demonstrating that Rome could not exist without them. Roman power to rule, imperium, was not brought to the Romans by Aeneas. It is a product of what Vergil described as Itala virtute, or Italian manliness. The second half of the epic provides not a blueprint for citizenship but the schematics of the Roman state, one in which the mother city would have no ability to rule were it not for the Italian peoples. Vergil accomplishes this message by thoroughly emasculating both Aeneas and Turnus before their final confrontation. That scene is read here as one of copulation, the Italian ground serving as the marriage bed in a struggle to found Rome. But with both men portrayed as effeminate in this final scene, and imperium removed as one of the prizes in the battle by Jupiter himself, the offspring born of what must be read as two mothers rather than two fathers must itself be weak and impotent. Without the strength of the Italians, Rome will not succeed.

No description available.

The diploma thesis deals with the life and reign of Augustus, the first Roman emperor from the Julian-Claudian dynasty, and compares it to the only one television film about this historical figure. In the opening chapter, the author analyses the history of the Roman Empire from 133 BC to the death of Gaius Iulius Caesar in 44 BC. The other part of the thesis deals with the life and the reign of Augustus who influenced the Roman Empire for several decades. The third and the fourth chapter are devoted to the analysis of the historical film Imperium: Augustus and its comparison with the primary and secondary literature. The last chapter deals with applying the sequences of this historical film in history classes in schools.

in English language: This thesis deals with the political and economic development of the Kingdom of Hanover as an example of a medium-sized state in the German Confederation. In addition to its relationship with Great Britain, with which was Hanover associated in personal union in the years 1714-1837, a new definition of relations between these states before 1866 and the annexation of Hanover by Prussia are also discussed, as well as the impact of the significant events in Europe in that time on the functioning of the Guelph domain. Closer to be discussed are the personalities of British Queen Victoria and Hanoverian King and Duke of Cumberland Ernest August, who were key actors at the end of the personal union in 1837, and in addressing the sensitive political issues that followed. Apart from the emphasis on political history, this thesis also deals with economic history, primarily in connection with Hanover's relationship with the German Customs Association (Zollverein). This institution, guarded by Prussia, represented to Hanover in certain stages of its development as an independent kingdom, first of all, competition and then a path to the short-term solution of its internal problems. Above all, however, this was one of the many situations where Hanoverian interests clashed with the interests...

Empress Livia – Murderer or wrongfully accused? An overview of the ancient sources on the empress Livia and what that suggests that shemurdered her husband Emperor Augustus and his adoptive children to make way for herown son Tiberius as the emperor of Rome.This work will analyze the ancient roman sources by the great historians from that time;Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, and their works discussing the murder conspiracy of theempress of Rome; Livia.Here I examine what these ancient sources tell about the possible involvement of Livia, on thedeath of Augustus himself and his adoptive sons. Each author to these ancient sources will beexamined and contextualized according to their contemporary time, but also their political andideological views of women in high position and Ceasarism itself. Their characteristics andstyles of their written account will also be examined.The following issues will be dealt with in this work:  What does the ancient sources of; Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio say about theconspiracy theory in which empress Livia is central.  What is known about the authors of these ancient sources and to what extant mighttheir political and ideological view affect their written account?  Can the allegations directed at Livia be the result of the fact that she was a highlyinfluential woman at her time, something which the ancient authors by romanstandards saw as unfit for a woman, and therefore is mistreated in the written sources?  If so, were all women with power under the same time and circumstances criticized inthe same way in which Livia is portrayed?  Are there any other aspects that have not been treated equally in the past by authorsand researchers, in which new questionable guidelines can be made? As is very important to point out, this work and essentially all others alike will not evenassume to solve the final question if empress Livias was guilty or not of murdering herhusband, Emperor Augustus and/or his adoptive sons. This work is to be foremost accepted asan appendix of other works regarding the same issue.

<p>Empress Livia – Murderer or wrongfully accused?</p><p>An overview of the ancient sources on the empress Livia and what that suggests that shemurdered her husband Emperor Augustus and his adoptive children to make way for herown son Tiberius as the emperor of Rome.This work will analyze the ancient roman sources by the great historians from that time;Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, and their works discussing the murder conspiracy of theempress of Rome; Livia.Here I examine what these ancient sources tell about the possible involvement of Livia, on thedeath of Augustus himself and his adoptive sons. Each author to these ancient sources will beexamined and contextualized according to their contemporary time, but also their political andideological views of women in high position and Ceasarism itself. Their characteristics andstyles of their written account will also be examined.The following issues will be dealt with in this work:</p><p> What does the ancient sources of; Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio say about theconspiracy theory in which empress Livia is central.</p><p> What is known about the authors of these ancient sources and to what extant mighttheir political and ideological view affect their written account?</p><p> Can the allegations directed at Livia be the result of the fact that she was a highlyinfluential woman at her time, something which the ancient authors by romanstandards saw as unfit for a woman, and therefore is mistreated in the written sources?</p><p> If so, were all women with power under the same time and circumstances criticized inthe same way in which Livia is portrayed?</p><p> Are there any other aspects that have not been treated equally in the past by authorsand researchers, in which new questionable guidelines can be made?</p><p>As is very important to point out, this work and essentially all others alike will not evenassume to solve the final question if empress Livias was guilty or not of murdering herhusband, Emperor Augustus and/or his adoptive sons. This work is to be foremost accepted asan appendix of other works regarding the same issue.</p>