Thesis (doctoral)--Jena, 1880. / Includes bibliographical references.

Diss. / Filmed with: Reiz, F.W. / De prosodiae Graecae accentus inclinatione -- Remy, A.C. / Disquisitio de Arato Sicyonio -- Spengel, M.A. / De versuum creticorum usu Plautino -- Sachse, E.G. / Quaestionum Lysiacarum specimen -- Raumer, F. von / Ueber die Poetik des Aristoteles und sein Verhl̃tniss zu den neueren Dramatikern -- Treutler, J. / Homerica Jovis epitheta comparantur cum Hesiodeis -- Rebling, O. / Observationes criticae in L. Annaeum Senecam patrem -- Toelken, E.H. / De Phidiae Jove Olympio observationes -- Sanneg, P. / De schola Isocratea pars prior -- Sauppe, G.A. / Appendicula ad Xenophontis editionem stereotypam continens annotationem criticam in scripta minora -- Stahlberg, K. / Commentationis de L. Attii vita et scriptis particula -- Weicker, G. / De Sophocle suae artis aestimatore -- Stieve, F. / De rei scenicae apud Romanos origine dissertatio -- Werner, E.J.M. / De Senecae philosophia dissertatio -- Schrd̲er, W. / De primordiis artis historicae apud Graecos et Romanos -- Palsson, A. / Historik inledning till Demosthenes tal Om den falska beskickningen -- Mohr, G.A. / De infinitivo historico -- Nerrlich, P. / De Jove Homerico : partis prioris caput I ... -- Pelliccioni, C. / Commentariis doctorum virorum in Sophoclis Oedipum Regem epimetron -- Sauerwein, G. / Ostenditur, qui loci in superstite Nubium ([Nepholon]) comoedia e priore earundem Nubium recensione ... -- Otto, G. / Quaestiones de Promethei Aeschyleae re scaenica -- Orges, W. / Comparatio Platonis et Aristotelis librorum de republica -- Mohnike, G.C.F. / Kleanthes der Stoiker -- Lange, K.W. / Commentationis de Sophoclis vita particula -- Winter, J. / De Jove Homerico -- Wiechmann, G.R. / Platonis et Aristotelis de arte rhetorica doctrinae inter se comparatur -- Werner, P.J.E.E. / quae fuerit Xenophontis de rebus publicis sententia exponatur -- Weland, A. / De praecipuis parodiarum Homericarum scriptoribus apud Graecos. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--John Hopkins University, 1897.

Thesis (doctoral)--Jena, 1876. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Bonn, 1851.

Diss.-- Leipzig. / Vita.

Recently many scholars have drawn attention to the meta-rhetorical nature of the competitions between Aeschines and Demosthenes, as each attempts to point out and condemn the rhetoric of the other. This concept of the "rhetoric of anti-rhetoric" has yet to be fully explored in Aeschines' three speeches. Aeschines' speeches depend for their structure and persuasive power on the interplay between Aeschines' self-representation as an idiotes (private citizen) and his anti-rhetorical attacks against the rhetor (politician) Demosthenes. When viewed in this way, the speeches of Aeschines manifest not only a beauty of structure but also a persuasiveness rivaling even Demosthenes' great oratory. This goes far toward explaining why Aeschines defeated Demosthenes in two of their three encounters. The purpose of my dissertation is to show that Aeschines, though considered a famous Athenian rhetor, represents himself as an idiotes in his speeches. Aeschines' self-representation as an idiotes requires a fresh look into the Athenian social perception of the distinction between rhetor and idiotes. How can Aeschines, a skilled speaker, argue that he is not a rhetor? To answer this question, we must take what Aeschines says about himself in his speeches seriously, namely, that he does not make a habit of prosecuting in the courts and that he goes long stretches without addressing the Assembly. Next, we need to measure these historical facts against the definition of rhetor in common use in fourth-century Athens, i.e. a continuous speaker before the Assembly and courts. Insofar as the term rhetor was socially and relatively defined, Aeschines could and did, by a persistent self-characterization as an idiotes, convince the majority of his audience that he was not in reality a rhetor. Secondly, my dissertation shows that much modern criticism of Aeschines' oratory as pedantic, legalistic, or unstructured arises from an insufficient consideration of Aeschines' insistent appeal to his status as idiotes. Aeschines' constant attack on Demosthenes' rhetoric throughout his three speeches depends for its persuasive effect on his self-representation as an idiotes. In fact, all of Aeschines' speeches are structured around the idea of the rhetor's threat to the people as well as to Aeschines himself. Aeschines is able to identify with the audience members even as he makes his opponent a threat to them. Aeschines' skill and versatility in deploying the art of anti-rhetoric teach us the potential and limit of this rhetorical convention at the same time as they illustrate the ambivalence of the Athenian people toward their political leaders.

This thesis aims to contribute to the study of the role of the civic past in the public discourse of fourth-century Athens. It does so by close examination of the surviving public speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines, arguing that presentation of the city’s history in front of mass audiences held singular persuasive potential for public speakers, allowing them to furnish with a more meaningful ethical context both the discussion of issues addressed in the Assembly and the arguments advanced in public trials. Deploying the past convincingly in such settings redounded to speakers’ personal credibility and authority, and Demosthenes and Aeschines – who offer rare examples of paired opposing speeches from the same trials – are selected as ‘case-study’ orators in order to illustrate: i) the importance of the invoking of Athenian historical models, both distant and recent, to Demosthenes’ self-fashioning as a politician; and ii) the extent to which orators made the very question of how to cite the past in public a stake in their wider struggle for political pre-eminence, seeking to be recognized as the ‘true’ and authoritative mediator of this material. These interests are reflected in the organization of the thesis. After an Introduction which discusses key preliminaries, Chapter One argues for Demosthenes’ early recognition of the potential of historical illustration for wider self-presentation, honed over the course of his Assembly career (Chapter Two) to become essential to his self-casting as Athens’s leading statesman. Chapter Three compares Demosthenic and Aeschinean approaches to citing the past in court, in two prosecutions from the mid-340s, and Chapters Four and Five – focusing on the high-profile Embassy and Crown trials – move to argue the importance of each politician’s contestation of the other’s versions of history to their battle over the reputations arising from their careers to date. The Conclusion summarizes, and reflects on some methodological aspects with a view to further work.

Tradução e estudo do discurso \"Contra Timarco\", de Ésquines. O estudo se concentra na condição tríplice do texto, como discurso jurídico, retrato do comportamento sexual masculino da Atenas do Período Clássico e exemplo da recepção primitiva da obra homérica em uma situação distante do contexto dos festivais e simpósios. / Translation and study of the speech \"Against Timarchos\", by Aeschines. The analysis focus on the trifold condition of the text, as a juridical speech, a portrait of the male sexual behavior in Classic Athens and an example of early reception of Homer\'s poetry, in a condition that differs from festivals and symposiums.

The aim of the thesis is to study the pseudonymous letters of Aeschines, all of which purport to give an account of his sojourn in exile. There is a strong consensus among scholars that all the letters are forgeries, and their date of composition tends to be located in the first few centuries CE on linguistic grounds. Embracing a variety of literary forms, these letters were probably composed by multiple hands and may for convenience be divided into three categories: Letters 2, 3, 7, 11, 12 imitate the ‘Demosthenic’ letters in a manner similar to the Hellenistic (and beyond) historical declamations and progymnasmata; Letters 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 come to us with features reminiscent of what German scholars would call Briefromane, or ‘epistolary novels’, and are normally deemed typical of the so-called Second Sophistic; and Letter 4 is a showpiece assuming the form of a Pindaric exegesis. The thesis consists of two parts. The first gives an extensive account of the letters, including their background, history of scholarship, and basic features, to seek to present the ‘forger’ and the text in their proper historical and cultural contexts. The second part, which constitutes the basis for the reflections developed in the first, provides a detailed commentary in thematic sequence. It begins with the ‘Demosthenic’ counterparts (Epp. 2, 3, 7, 11, 12), and stylistic comparisons are made throughout. The analysis of the fictional letters (Epp. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9) pays particular attention to their consistency of narrative and engagement with other literary genres. The commentary on Letter 4 foregrounds the Pindaric elements and completes the thesis. Letter 10 is discussed at sporadic points: it is a later attachment to the corpus and the erotic content is inconsistent with the ‘original’ forgeries. The overall focus of the thesis is on two overlapping aspects of Aeschines’ early reception in antiquity – as ‘the other orator’ beside Demosthenes and as inspiration for later rhetorical education. Existing studies, however, are more concerned with textual criticism and linguistic analysis and have left the letters almost unproductive in these respects: so Drerup (1904), Schwegler (1914), and, most recently, García Ruiz and Hernández Muñoz (2012). In his classic work Goldstein (1968) took the parallel passages in the pseudonymous letters as evidence for authenticating Demosthenes’ letters, and scholars are now able to take advantage of a more reliable reference when studying Ps.-Aeschines. Holzberg (1994), on the other hand, established a set of generic criteria for the Briefromane and has substantially changed the way we read Ps.-Aeschines: it is now possible to appreciate the literary value of the letters without scrutinising their authenticity. Yet both these studies tell us only half the story: while Goldstein left more remarks on the imitative counterparts of Demosthenes’ letters, Holzberg focused on the way the letters reflect the epistolary narrative. Following Rohde (1876/1960), moreover, it seems common sense to characterise the pseudo-historical tale as seen through the letters as a product of the ‘Second Sophistic’, though discoveries of new papyri, e.g. the Ninus romance c. first century BCE, undermined this assumption. My study is built on these investigations in an attempt to form the most extended analysis. The study of the ‘Demosthenic’ counterparts will contribute to a better understanding of Ps.-Aeschines’ intertextual engagement with Demosthenes and his successors, e.g. Ps.-Leosthenes (FGrH 105 F 6 = MP3 2496). It shows that Ps.-Aeschines owes a great deal to the culture of rhetoric and highlights his significance in the Nachleben of Attic oratory. As for the other letters, this thesis argues that they deserve some space in our accounts of the history of exilic, periegetic, and epinician literatures for contextualising a wide range of preexisting literary forms such as the Homeric Odyssey (Ep. 1) and Pindar’s victory odes (Ep. 4). As contingent by-products of the ‘Demosthenic’ counterparts, however, they seem to allow no confident judgement about generic consciousness, esp. the very notion of ‘novel’, and need to be approached as antedating the Imperial exponents. Contrary to the communis opinio, therefore, I attempt to move the date of composition forward to the late Hellenistic period, in which there was already ample encouragement for a sophist, as well as for his students, to write pseudonymous letters. The ‘traitors’ blacklist’ (Ep. 12.8–9) and the term for the Rhodian family of Diagoreans (Ep. 4.4) entertain this possibility inasmuch as both show marked affinities with the Hellenistic sources. Last but not least, the two coexisting, radically opposed interpretations of one’s civic orientation in exile will help us tackle the stability and change in the political cultures of the post-Classical era. My conclusion is that these letters hold a unique position as very early – and very illuminating – examples of how different literary, political trends were interwoven to make, and to remould, a Classic. It is hoped that this study may have done something to reappraise Ps.-Aeschines, who is, in all likelihood, a pre-sophisticated forerunner at a crossroads in the history of Greek literature.