No description available.

Gaius Julius Caesar remains one of the most studied characters of antiquity. His personality, political career, and military campaigns have garnered numerous scholarly treatments, as have his alleged aspirations to monarchy and divinity. However, comparatively little detailed work has been done to examine his own personal religiosity and even less attention has been paid to his religion in the context of his military conquests. I argue that Caesar has wrongly been deemed irreligious or skeptical and that his conduct while on campaign demonstrates that he was a religious man. Within the Roman system of religion, ritual participation was more important than faith or belief. Caesar pragmatically manipulated the Romans' flexible religious framework to secure military advantage almost entirely within the accepted bounds of religious conduct. If strict observance of ritual was the measure of Roman religiosity, then Caesar exceeded the religious expectations of his rank and office. The evidence reveals that he was an exemplar of Roman religio throughout both the Gallic Wars (58-51BC) and the subsequent Civil Wars (49-45BC).

Thesis--Universität Trier, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references ([332]-347) and indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. [332]-347).

This dissertation examines the role of aesthetic activity in the pursuit of political agency in readings of several of Shakespeare’s plays, including Hamlet (1600), A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1595), The Tempest (1610), the history plays of the second tetralogy (1595-9), Julius Caesar (1599), and Coriolanus (1605). I demonstrate how Shakespeare models political subjectivity—the capacity for individuals to participate meaningfully in the political realm—as necessitating active aesthetic agency. This aesthetic agency entails the fashioning of artistically conceived public personae that potential political subjects enact in the public sphere and the critical engagement of the aesthetic and political discourses of the subjects’ culture in a self-reflective and appropriative manner. Furthermore, these subjects should be wary auditors of the texts and personae they encounter within the public sphere in order to avoid internalizing constraining ideologies that reify their identities into forms less conducive to the pursuit of liberty and social mobility. Early modern audiences could discover several models for doing so in Shakespeare’s works. For example, Hamlet posits a model of Machiavellian theatricality that masks the Prince's interiority as he resists the biopolitical force and disciplinary discourses of Claudius's Denmark. Julius Caesar and Coriolanus advance a model of citizenship through the plays’ nameless plebeians in which rhetoric offers the means to participate in Rome’s political culture, and Shakespeare’s England for audiences, while authorities manipulate citizen opinion by molding the popularity of public figures. Public, artistic ability affords potential political subjects ways of not only framing their participation in their culture but also ways of conceiving of their identities and relationships to society that may defy normative notions of membership in the community.

Gaius Julius Caesar is not only the most well-known figure in Roman history, but he is also one of the most difficult to understand. Since his assassination, Caesar has played an important role in discussions of political power, imperial government, tyranny, and tyrannicide. While there have been literary treatments of Caesar from William Shakespeare to the present, little has been done to trace the image of Caesar through the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The present work attempts to fill that hole by examining portrayals of Caesar in medieval and early Renaissance texts. An examination of specific authors such as Geoffrey of Monmouth, John of Salisbury, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Petrarch, Salutati, and Bruni, clearly demonstrates that Caesar was consistently portrayed as the first emperor and used to represent the Roman Empire. As the first emperor, representations of Caesar figured significantly in debates about the power of the Church and the Empire, the benefits and downfalls of imperial government, and tyrannicide. Authors were influenced in their portrayals of Caesar by the classical portrayals found in the works of Vergil, Lucan, and Suetonius. Each author's interpretation of Caesar was also impacted by the political and intellectual milieu in which he flourished. Analysis of Caesar's image over this time period serves not only as a part of Caesar historiography, but also provides insight into the ways that scholars write history to understand the world around them.

Cette thèse étudie le rôle de la pensée morale et politique dans la tragédie moderne (XVIe-XVIIIe siècles), en se concentrant sur un ensemble de pièces néo-latines, françaises, italiennes et anglaises qui représentent la mort du dictateur romain Jules César, auxquelles on a joint Cinna de Corneille. Pour susciter les passions tragiques, la fable doit représenter un personnage, ou un groupe de personnages, qui passe du bonheur au malheur à la suite d’une « faute » moralement ou politiquement ambiguë. Cet enchaînement est particulièrement tragique lorsque la « faute » est au moins partiellement involontaire et résulte d’une forme de nécessité : la tragédie manifeste alors le poids de la « fortune morale ». L’ambiguïté de la « faute » tragique peut revêtir diverses formes ; dans les Mort(s) de César, elle réside d’une part dans le fait que les personnages sont contraints d’agir dans une situation caractérisée par plusieurs antinomies, d’autre part dans le fait que leurs motivations paraissent à certains égards contraires aux justifications qu’ils avancent. La tragédie moderne est profondément réfractaire à la pensée casuiste contemporaine – sous les diverses formes qu’elle prend dans la théorie de l’invention rhétorique, la philosophie morale et politique et l’historiographie –, car elle laisse irrésolus les « cas » moraux et politiques qu’elle expose. Mais Cinna, première « tragédie à fin heureuse » du répertoire français, montre comment il est possible de parvenir à la réconciliation et à une issue moralement et politiquement satisfaisante par-delà les antinomies tragiques. / This dissertation investigates the functions of moral and political thought in modern tragedy (16th-18th centuries), focusing on a group of Neo-Latin, French, Italian and English plays which represent the death of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, as well as on Corneille’s Cinna. In order to provoke the tragic emotions, a fable must represent a character or a group of characters whose fall from happiness into mishap is a consequence of a morally or politically ambiguous “flaw”. This sequence is particularly tragic when the “flaw” is at least partially unintentional and results from a kind of necessity : tragedy thus manifests the importance of “moral luck”. The ambiguity of the tragic “flaw” may arise from different circumstances ; in the plays representing the death of Caesar it consists on the one hand in the antinomies which the characters must face, on the other hand in the fact that their motivations appear in some ways contrary to the arguments they use in order to justify themselves. Modern tragedy is profoundly extraneous to contemporary casuistry (as developed in the rhetorical theory of invention, in moral and political philosophy and in historical writing), in that it leaves moral and political “cases” unsolved. However, Cinna, the first happy-ending tragedy in the French theatre, shows how reconciliation and a morally and politically satisfying ending are possible despite the tragic antinomies.

Due to the social, political, and religious upheavals occurring across Europe in the Early Modern period, many writers were exploring the proper relationship between citizens and political and religious leaders. While some writers encouraged citizens to give unconditional loyalty to local and national leaders, Shakespeare has a pattern of endorsing citizen rebellion as a moral means to overthrow tyrannical rulers. By exploring Richard III, Measure for Measure, and Julius Caesar, I argue that Shakespeare is developing a taxonomy of citizen responses to a tyrannical leader and teaches citizens that a moral rebellion can be launched against a tyrant when a citizen embraces personal responsibility, accepts the power of rhetoric over violence, and overcomes the filtering effects of nostalgia. To demonstrate that Shakespeare is deliberately entering the conversation about a citizen's reaction to a tyrant, I provide information about how a tyrant is defined in the Early Modern period. I synthesize the scholarship on relevant texts in the period and explain how all three leaders in the aforementioned plays support that definition of tyranny. Then I focus on each play's surrounding characters to discuss the motivations and reactions of rebellious and obedient citizens. Finally, I conclude each section with an analysis of the repercussions of the citizen's actions and evaluate the lessons that Shakespeare is consistently promoting about moral rebellion.

In examining the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of the principate, one is inevitably struck by the transformation of the relationship between the individual and the community. Roman society during the Republic was predicated on the communal leadership of the elite and the recognition of excellence in individuals. In the days of the early and middle Republic, this individual recognition served as the vehicle to participation in communal authority, the prize for which aristocratic families competed. Communal authority was embodied in the Senate. The Senate not only acted as the supreme political body in the Roman state, but also acted as the moral and religious arbiter for society. This was in addition to their more easily foreseeable role as the face of the Roman state toward foreign peoples, both diplomatically and militarily. Heads of aristocratic families who were most often already part of the economic elite sought to secure membership within this smaller circle of political elite. Influence was sought in a variety of arenas, all with the purpose of proving one’s worthiness to be part of the administration of the state. Pursuit and possession of the traditional Roman virtues provided the foundation of legitimacy for oligarchic rule, and individual proof of virtue was necessary for inclusion within that rule. One of the chief spheres of proving one’s virtue was war, where martial valor eclipsed all other virtues, and courage on the battlefield and excellence in command proved one’s worthiness to inclusion in communal authority. However, as the Republic found itself facing every more frequent and threatening crises, it increasingly turned to its men of ability, investing them with ever greater license, and permitting, or at least having no choice but to permit, ever greater concentration of state power in the hands of individuals. These men of ambition and ability took advantage of Rome’s changing polity and the professionalization of its military under the reforms of Marius to circumvent traditional avenues of advancement in favor of more direct approaches. Each looked to the man behind him as precedent and to the future as chance for even greater glory. Eventually, Caesar took power at the head of an intensely loyal military force, ready to enforce by force of arms any protests in the name of tradition. Though ultimately assassinated, Caesar’s dictatorship marked the end of Republican Rome and the rise of the principate, defined by an inversion of the traditional relationship between the community and the individual. Now it was the Senate which sought political participation within the overarching framework of individual authority.

Certain literary works in the secondary English curriculum no doubt adapt themselves more readily than others to teaching methods other than the traditional, verbal style of teaching. This study has sought to develop a literature curriculum incorporating the study of Julius Caesar for secondary English students which focuses on students' needs and interests, as described by their individual learning styles. Results of this study indicated that teachers of English will need to continue to modify the literature curriculum in order to address the learning styles of their students.

Leonardo Bruni published one of his most widely copied translations, Xenophon's pro-monarchical Hiero, shortly before he penned his more famous original works, his Dialogues and Panegyric to the City of Florence. Scholars have traditionally focused on the political ideas present in these original treatises; yet, despite the centrality of political ideas to the Hiero, its temporal proximity to these works, and its enormous popularity (the work exists in 200 fifteenth-century manuscripts), scholars have neglected to offer a full assessment of Bruni's translation in the context of these works. Bruni's translation of Xenophon's Hiero fit into a debate in early fifteenth-century Florence about Julius Caesar and the Florentine poet Dante. The two major thinkers in the debate, Bruni and Coluccio Salutati, agreed that a distinction had to be made between kings and tyrants based on legal claim and quality of rule. The Hiero reinforced this assumption. The two men disagreed, however, about which category applied to Julius Caesar and what this meant for the reputation of Dante.