As Theoderic established himself as ruler of the Italian peninsula in 493, he would usher in a period of great renewal of Roman culture within his kingdom, a theme which would emerge across western Europe as new Germanic leaders came to rule Roman populations. Within this wave of cultural renewal there emerged several works paying homage to Roman culture and prestige. Amongst these publications came two brief cookbooks from the authors Anthimus and Vinidarius. This raises the question: why were these authors producing such works of culinary content, and were they related to issues concerning the renewal of Roman culture in western Europe? This thesis aims to answer the above questions through the evaluation of Anthimus and Vinidarius’ participation in Roman cultural renewal. To investigate this issue, my study first examines the recognition and renewal of romanitas in western Europe and the Mediterranean, and through which media it took place. This is followed by an examination of cuisine to determine a model for Roman dietary preferences, against which the works of Anthimus and Vinidarius may be contrasted. Finally, in an examination of Anthimus and Vinidarius, the study seeks to establish connections between the two individuals and Ostrogothic Italy, as well as connections between their culinary preferences and those supported by the model established in Chapter 2. On the basis of the investigations of this thesis, conclusions may be drawn about Anthimus and Vinidarius and efforts to renew Roman culture in fifth and sixth-century western Europe. The geographic connections of the two authors, along with their relatively high social status, suggest a connection to Theoderic and his court in Italy. The culinary preparations described in their texts also represent a strong connection with earlier elite Roman cooking. This thesis therefore concludes that the authors Anthimus and Vinidarius used food as a medium for cultural promotion, and in doing so, participated in the ongoing revival of interest in Roman cultural identity.

This thesis argues that Ammianus is interested in, and attempts to define, a Roman identity applicable to his own multifarious world. It argues that Ammianus and some of his peers discern a clear increase in the number of foreigners and outsiders in the empire. While some of his peers lament this perception and adopt a hard-line approach, Ammianus has a much more nuanced view. It is argued that the model of Roman identity which he devises not only accounts for foreigners, but actually, in some cases, makes them exemplars of a flexible Roman identity based chiefly on the notion of appropriate behaviour. In this sense, his identity scheme is ultimately integrative and inclusive. As part of his definition of identity, Ammianus utilises an "outsider" perspective. This perspective is shown to dictate not only how he portrays his characters and their deeds, but even how he reflects on the substance of Romanness as a continual dialogue between "Roman" and "foreign", broadly conceived. It is finally argued that the historian's purpose in defining such an identity is to ensure that the eternity of the empire, in which he firmly believes, is safeguarded by future "Romans" who perhaps may never even see the City itself, but nevertheless remain committed to its protection.

La diplomatie romaine de l’époque médio-républicaine (396-264 avant J.-C.), c’est-à-dire au moment de la conquête de l’Italie, est connue essentiellement à travers les sources littéraires. Pour autant, il n’existe pas dans ces textes, un terme servant à désigner l’activité diplomatique. Afin de cerner un phénomène auquel ne correspond aucun terme antique, il faut donc revenir au regard des historiens modernes, des Byzantins et des historiens antiques. On constate ainsi que l’identité romaine est au cœur des enjeux diplomatiques, dans la manière dont elle fut reconstruite. L’histoire diplomatique de la période ne démontre pas autre chose : les Romains de cette époque eurent parfaitement conscience de la manière dont ils devaient se représenter aux yeux de leurs interlocuteurs, à savoir comme des Grecs, avant d’affirmer une identité plus particulièrement romaine. Enfin, l’histoire de la diplomatie ou, pour le dire autrement, de ses pratiques montre que les Romains cherchèrent à forger une identité aux yeux des autres autant que d’eux-mêmes. À une époque de changements et d’évolutions des institutions romaines, en adéquation avec les nouvelles frontières de l’imperium, les modes de gestion de la prise de décision entre l’extérieur et l’intérieur, entre le centre et la périphérie de l’hégémonie romaine, le protocole même de réception à Rome ainsi que la constitution d’un espace diplomatique, la figure de l’ambassadeur enfin, du fetialis au legatus, constituent autant d’éléments qui participèrent de l’affirmation d’une identité civique romaine. / The Roman diplomacy during the medio-republican period (396-264 B.C.), that is to say while Romans were conquering Italy, is mostly known through litterary sources. Nevertheless, there is no word, in this documentation, to name diplomatic activity. In order to define a phenomenon without specific ancient terminology, we have to successively look at the way modern historians, Byzantine scholars and ancient historians understand it. We thus discover that roman identity is a central issue in diplomacy and in the way it was written. The diplomatic history of the period points out the same conclusions : Romans, in that time, were perfectly conscious of the importance of the way they do represent themselves to strangers. They first wanted to be considered as Greeks, before they begun to make up a more specific Roman identity. Lastly, the history of diplomacy or, more exactly, of diplomatic practices, shows that Romans desired to make up an identity for the others as for themselves. At a time of changes and evolutions in the Roman institutions, partially due to the new boundaries of the imperium, the way the Romans provide to decision-making, between inside and outside, between the center and the periphery of Roman hegemony, the formalities linked to reception at Rome as the constitution of a diplomatic space in Rome, finally the figure of the ambassador, from the fetialis to the legatus, contribute in different ways to the assertion of a Roman civic identity.

This thesis examines the relationship between language and Roman identity, defined in the broadest sense as the political and cultural practices involved in being Roman. It focuses on evidence of multilingualism: Roman identity was defined through opposition and interaction, and it is at points of contact that these debates are cast into relief. It looks predominantly at evidence of Greek-Latin bilingualism, but also considers evidence of other languages to consider how their relationship to Roman identity differs. It combines historical and sociolinguistic approaches to multilingualism. Understanding bilingual language practices requires close sociolinguistic reading of evidence to understand how languages interrelate and analysis of the historical factors and contexts that determine language choices and their social, cultural and political implications. The thesis responds especially to the use of bilingualism as a model for Roman cultural relations, arguing that a closer engagement with sociolinguistic terminology and with linguistic evidence is necessary if we are to use language and bilingualism as a way into broader issues of politics and identity. Language is simultaneously a model for identity that works across ancient and modern thought and a central part of this identity. It frequently plays into other markers of Roman identity and a range of themes and concerns surrounding it including integration, migration and citizenship. The thesis examines three case studies in detail: the different layers of bilingualism in Suetonius' biographies; Greek in the graffiti of Pompeii; epigraphic and literary evidence for different languages in the city of Rome. These case studies demonstrate the politics of language in different types of practice and at different levels of society: the thesis argues that the overlaps between them are greater than has sometimes been appreciated. The case studies also show that the boundaries of Roman identity did not develop in a progressive or linear fashion but were continually defined and redefined through ongoing processes of absorption and rejection.

Orientador: Marcos Aurelio Pereira / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-25T05:07:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Pini_Mariana_M.pdf: 615255 bytes, checksum: 51467bd71b14bb047c5105dea6592413 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / Resumo: A obra Brutus, de Marco Túlio Cícero, conduz uma reflexão sobre a história da eloquência e uma avaliação sobre os grandes nomes da retórica, desde suas origens dentro da cultura grega antiga até suas contribuições romanas, cuja glória máxima é depositada sobre o próprio autor. No ocaso da República sob a tirania de César, o Arpinate apresenta seu panteão de oradores, associado a um conjunto de preceitos sobre o latim. Este trabalho advoga que a preceptiva ciceroniana dialoga com a obra De analogia, de César (por sua vez, dedicada a Cícero como resposta a seu influente De oratore). O estudo se dedica a investigar como Cícero formula suas concepções sobre o bom latim de forma incompatível, em numerosos aspectos, com as concepções de César. A discussão sobre a Latinitas é tomada como oportunidade, no Brutus, para que Cícero articule seu próprio ethos como um personagem, bem como o de César, também presente no diálogo. O latim é um campo de batalha que se tinge de tonalidades políticas: o orador concebe a Latinitas como questão de educação elementar e hábito alcançado através da prática com boas famílias. Júlio César, por sua vez, tinha por objetivo democratizar a Latinitas. Assim, a defesa do general, em favor de uma forma restrita de oratória, é regida pela ratio, isto é, de um método racional. A Latinitas está ligada à ideia de identidade propriamente romana; contudo, o debate sobre a fala adequada envolve inevitavelmente pontos de vista diferentes. O Brutus se inicia com a morte de Hortênsio, mas o eclipse do debate forense público imposto pelo general César representa, para Cícero, a morte da República; dessa forma, o texto compõe uma reflexão sobre a morte não apenas de um orador, mas de numerosos princípios caros ao Arpinate na Roma que se desenhava sob o domínio da censura / Abstract: The work Brutus, by Marcus Tullius Cicero, builds a reflection upon the history of eloquence and an evaluation about the greatest names of Rhetoric, since its emergence within the ancient Greek culture until its Roman contributions, whose most glorious representative is Tully himself. At the end of the Republic, under Caesarian tyranny, the Arpinate displays his pantheon of speakers, associated with a set of precepts about the Latin language and culture. The present study advocates that the Ciceronian perceptive is related to De analogia, a work by Julius Caesar (and dedicated to Cicero, as a reaction to his influential De oratore). This dissertation aims at investigating how Cicero formulates his conceptions about Latin in a way incompatible with Caesar¿s convictions. The discussion about Latinitas is seen as an opportunity, in Brutus, for Cicero to articulate his own ethos as a character, as well as Caesar¿s (also included in the dialogue). Latin is a battlefield tinted with political hues: The Roman orator conceives Latinitas as a matter of basic education and a habit reached through practice with worthy families. Julius Caesar, on the other hand, aims to democratize Latinity. Hence, the general¿s standpoint, favoring a restricted understanding of oratory, is governed by ratio ¿ in other words, by a rational method. Latinitas is connected to the idea of a properly Roman identity; the adequate speech is understood differently according to those different perspectives. The Brutus begins with the death of Hortesius, but the obliteration of public forensic debate (enforced by Caesar) represents, for Cicero, the death of Republic. Therefore, the text composes a reflection on death ¿ not merely the death of a speaker, but also the death of a number of principles cherished by the Arpinate in a Rome which had been recently brought under control by means of censorship / Mestrado / Linguistica / Mestra em Linguística

La période entre 338 et 290 av. J.-C. fut un tournant pour Rome, car elle vit la soumission des Latins et la défaite des Samnites, ce qui permit à l’Urbs de devenir la première puissance italique. On assista donc à l’avènement d’un impérialisme romain. Se pose alors la question de l’idéologie d’État de cette Rome en transition. Comme cette expansion fut accompagnée par la construction, à Rome, de dix nouveaux temples, souvent dédiés à des divinités nouvelles, et que toute divinité exprimait une idéologie, il nous a semblé possible de reconstituer, dans ses grands traits, cette idéologie d’État grâce aux nouvelles divinités et leurs sanctuaires. Nous avons donc choisi d’analyser deux nouveaux temples : celui de Quirinus et celui de Victoria. Le choix de Quirinus s’explique par le fait que ce dieu avait, on l’a montré, déjà été assimilé à Romulus ; quant à Victoria, on l’a choisie pour trois raisons : elle était une déesse de la victoire ; son temple fut élevé au-Dessus du Lupercal, au cœur même de la « Rome de Romulus » ; grâce aux fouilles de P. Pensabene, on peut reconstituer son sanctuaire. Puis, on a analysé les deux temples et leurs divinités à travers les concepts (cadre social de la mémoire, mémoire collective) issus de la sociologie de M. Halbwachs. On a ainsi constaté qu’à travers ces temples, l’élite dirigeante avait diffusé auprès du peuple une nouvelle identité collective affirmant le caractère exceptionnel de Rome et contenant l’idée d’une expansion illimitée de l’Urbs. Cette création d’une identité romaine impérialiste se fondant sur Romulus et la religion en général, on peut l’interpréter comme la construction d’un destin collectif pour Rome. / The period between 338 and 290 B.C. saw a sea change for Rome, because the subjugation of the Latins and the defeat of the Samnites allowed her to become the main italic power, and witnessed the advent of a roman imperialism. In this context arises the problem of the state ideology of this Rome in transition. As this expansion was accompanied by the construction of ten new temples in Rome, frequently consecrated to new deities, each of them expressing a specific ideology, we thought it possible to reconstruct the new state ideology through an analysis of the deities and shrines in question. So, for our study, we chose two new temples, those of Quirinus and of Victoria. Quirinus because of his assimilation to Romulus, Victoria because she was a deity of victory; her shrine was built above the Lupercal, at the heart of the “Rome of Romulus”; and because her temple can be reconstructed thanks to the excavations of P. Pensabene. Then we analyzed the two temples and their godheads through concepts (social frame of memory; collective memory) taken from the sociology of M. Halbwachs. In this way we came to the conclusion that, through these two shrines, the ruling élite had tried to communicate to the common people a new collective identity promoting the exceptionality of Rome and her unlimited powers of expansion. This construction of an imperialistic roman identity being based on Romulus and the religion in general, one can interpret it as construction of a collective destiny for Rome.