No description available.

In both the narratives of their reigns and as objects of allusion in accounts of later periods of Roman history, the seven kings of Rome (r. 753-509 BCE, traditionally) frequently feature in historiographical and biographical works written after the death of Livy (17 CE) with meaningful nuance despite the relative crystallization of Rome's founding and regal legends during the age of Augustus (r. 31 BCE-14 CE). I demonstrate how 12 authors writing over a period of four centuries, from late in the reign of Tiberius (r. 14-37 CE) to shortly after the death of Theodosius I (r. 378-395), refashion the kings as creative reflections of, or reactions to, the Roman emperors in both their narratives and the time of writing those narratives. These writers are, in Latin, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Florus, Justin, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the anonymous authors of the Historia Augusta and Epitome de Caesaribus; in Greek, Appian and Cassius Dio. Through close, contextual readings I examine how and explain why certain authors present the kings as exemplary monarchs whose conduct should be imitated or avoided, especially in contexts where those kings are by a variety of rhetorical tactics compared or contrasted with figures in narratives of later history. I then place those readings along a chronological spectrum to reveal common elements of continuity and evolution of the kings among these 12 authors at various points in imperial history. It can be shown that the idealization of the kings is roughly a function of the author's audience and social class (i.e. Roman senators are less favorable to them than equestrians and provincials). Moreover, the kings evolve over time, beginning as blood ancestors of emperors in the early Principate, expanding to products and benefactors of a diverse, Mediterranean cosmopolis during the High Empire, then restricting to symbols of traditional political, cultural, and religious notions tied to the physical city of Rome in Late Antiquity, when the political, spatial, and spiritual transformation of the imperial office made the kings obsolete as persuasive models of imperial rulership. More broadly, this project adds to our understanding that at any point, societies tend to not only reinvent their histories as reflections of their own time, but also credit "Great Men" both as explanatory devices for major events and as embodiments of national identity.

The political career of Gaius Marius (ca. 157-86 BC}, which spans the years between 120 and 86 BC, was memorable not only for its unprecedented personal and public triumphs, but was also of momentous significance in the whole history of the Roman Republic. At precisely the time that Marius achieved a supreme position in the state, the military might of the Romans, hitherto invincible at least in fairly recent times (second century}, had been dealt a series of humiliating setbacks abroad. Firstly, in North Africa by a rather minor despot, Jugurtha the king of Numidia. Secondly, much closer to home in Illyria and in southern Gaul by the migrating Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and the Teutones. Against this background of quite unremitting disaster, Marius obtained a place in republican political life which had not been witnessed before. In his pursuit of senatorial offices, Marius initially experienced both victories and disappointments (success in the tribunician elections but failure in elections for the aedileship) before finally winning the prestigious consulship in the elections held in 108. Thereafter, he was consul a further six times, and five of these consulships were held in successive years between 104 and 100. Just as he was dominant on the field of battle against the Numidians and the Germanic tribes, so, too, did he control the politics of the city during the decade from 108 to 99: The chapters which follow below set out to trace Marius' long rise to preeminence, his contribution to the intricate tribunician legislation of the period in which he flourished and, moreover, his involvement with other senior political figures who were his contemporaries. Furthermore, this biographical study seeks to fully expose the fact that, as a result of his participation in the politics of the time, Marius' career became an obvious example which other equally ambitious politicians (for instance, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Octavian) sought to emulate or even to surpass. Consequently, Marius may not have realised the extent of the dangers which he bequeathed to the res publica but, inadvertently or not, he caused the beginning of the fall of the Roman Republic. / D. Litt. et Phil. (Ancient History) / History

The political career of Gaius Marius (ca. 157-86 BC}, which spans the years between 120 and 86 BC, was memorable not only for its unprecedented personal and public triumphs, but was also of momentous significance in the whole history of the Roman Republic. At precisely the time that Marius achieved a supreme position in the state, the military might of the Romans, hitherto invincible at least in fairly recent times (second century}, had been dealt a series of humiliating setbacks abroad. Firstly, in North Africa by a rather minor despot, Jugurtha the king of Numidia. Secondly, much closer to home in Illyria and in southern Gaul by the migrating Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and the Teutones. Against this background of quite unremitting disaster, Marius obtained a place in republican political life which had not been witnessed before. In his pursuit of senatorial offices, Marius initially experienced both victories and disappointments (success in the tribunician elections but failure in elections for the aedileship) before finally winning the prestigious consulship in the elections held in 108. Thereafter, he was consul a further six times, and five of these consulships were held in successive years between 104 and 100. Just as he was dominant on the field of battle against the Numidians and the Germanic tribes, so, too, did he control the politics of the city during the decade from 108 to 99: The chapters which follow below set out to trace Marius' long rise to preeminence, his contribution to the intricate tribunician legislation of the period in which he flourished and, moreover, his involvement with other senior political figures who were his contemporaries. Furthermore, this biographical study seeks to fully expose the fact that, as a result of his participation in the politics of the time, Marius' career became an obvious example which other equally ambitious politicians (for instance, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Octavian) sought to emulate or even to surpass. Consequently, Marius may not have realised the extent of the dangers which he bequeathed to the res publica but, inadvertently or not, he caused the beginning of the fall of the Roman Republic. / D. Litt. et Phil. (Ancient History) / History

This thesis addresses the gap in the scholarly record pertaining to the explicit relationship between gospel genre and implied audience. This thesis challenges the consensus that the canonical gospels were written to/for individual communities/churches and that these documents (gospels) address the specific historical/social circumstances of each community. It is argued in the thesis that the Evangelists chose the genre of biography because it was the genre that was best suited to present the words and deeds of Jesus to the largest possible audience. The central thesis is supported by four lines of evidence: two external and two internal (Chapters 3-6). Furthermore, the thesis is bolstered by a new typology for Greco-Roman biography that arranges the biographical examples within a relational matrix. Chapter 2 is integral to the main thesis of this dissertation in that it proposes nuanced language capable of being applied to specific kinds of biographies with the emphasis on the relationship to implied audience. Chapter 2 sets the boundaries of the discussion of genre as a vital factor in potentially determining audience as well as raising the important consideration that genres are representative of authorial choice and intent. Chapters 3 and 4 take up the discussion of the two lines of external evidence pertinent to placing the Gospels within the relational typology proposed in chapter 2. Chapter 3 supports the main argument of the thesis in that it demonstrates that the earliest Christian interpreters of the Gospels did not understand them to be sectarian documents written specifically to and/or for specific sectarian Christian communities. The second line of external evidence, taken up in chapter 4, deals with the wider context of Jesus literature in the second/third century. We argue that these texts, if any of them are indeed biographies, were part of the wider Christian practice of writing and disseminating literary presentations of Jesus and Jesus traditions. Chapters 5 and 6 address the lines of internal evidence and chapter 5 deals specifically with the difficulty in reconstructing the various gospel communities that might lie behind the gospel texts. It is argued that the genre of biography does not allow us to reconstruct these communities with any detail. Finally, chapter 6 is concerned with the ‘all nations’ motif present in all four of the canonical gospels. The ‘all nations’ and ‘sending’ motifs in the Gospels suggest an evangelistic tone for the Gospels and further suggest an ideal secondary audience beyond those who could be identified as Christian.