No description available.

No description available.

Diferentemente das recorrentes assertivas sobre o comprometimento político dos intelectuais gregos no Império, a nosso ver, a partir do século II d.C., a chamada Segunda Sofística é um indicativo do movimento cultural grego iniciado no século I d.C. Embora seus integrantes apresentem intenções distintas em seus escritos, os intelectuais gregos do Império participam de estilos e temáticas narrativas semelhantes. No caso de Plutarco, e essa é a nossa tese central, demonstramos que nosso autor não compôs sua obra para exaltar ou glorificar o Império romano ou ainda a cultura grega. Sendo assim, seus escritos representam a expressão da singularidade e da utilidade da tradição cultural grega para o fortalecimento político do Império. O objetivo principal de Plutarco está, pois, em construir uma identidade grega no Império, pautada na história de seu povo e em sua tradição cultural, para exibir ao mundo romano a contribuição dos gregos para a formação do Império. / Differently from the usual assertions about the Greek intellectuals\' political compromise with the Empire, in our perspective, as from the second century A.D., the so called Second Sophistic is an indicative of the Greek cultural movement started in the first century A.D. Although its members present distinct intentions of their writings, the Greek intellectuals of the Empire develop similar styles and themes through their narratives. Considering Plutarch\'s case, and this is the core of our thesis, we demonstrate that our author did not write his work to exalt nor to glorify the Roman Empire nor the Greek culture. His writings represent the expression of the singularity and the usefulness of the Greek cultural tradition for the political strength of the Empire. Plutarch\'s main objective is to build a Greek identity in the Empire, based on the history of the people and their cultural tradition to exhibit the Greeks\' contribution to the formation of the Roman Empire.

Diferentemente das recorrentes assertivas sobre o comprometimento político dos intelectuais gregos no Império, a nosso ver, a partir do século II d.C., a chamada Segunda Sofística é um indicativo do movimento cultural grego iniciado no século I d.C. Embora seus integrantes apresentem intenções distintas em seus escritos, os intelectuais gregos do Império participam de estilos e temáticas narrativas semelhantes. No caso de Plutarco, e essa é a nossa tese central, demonstramos que nosso autor não compôs sua obra para exaltar ou glorificar o Império romano ou ainda a cultura grega. Sendo assim, seus escritos representam a expressão da singularidade e da utilidade da tradição cultural grega para o fortalecimento político do Império. O objetivo principal de Plutarco está, pois, em construir uma identidade grega no Império, pautada na história de seu povo e em sua tradição cultural, para exibir ao mundo romano a contribuição dos gregos para a formação do Império. / Differently from the usual assertions about the Greek intellectuals\' political compromise with the Empire, in our perspective, as from the second century A.D., the so called Second Sophistic is an indicative of the Greek cultural movement started in the first century A.D. Although its members present distinct intentions of their writings, the Greek intellectuals of the Empire develop similar styles and themes through their narratives. Considering Plutarch\'s case, and this is the core of our thesis, we demonstrate that our author did not write his work to exalt nor to glorify the Roman Empire nor the Greek culture. His writings represent the expression of the singularity and the usefulness of the Greek cultural tradition for the political strength of the Empire. Plutarch\'s main objective is to build a Greek identity in the Empire, based on the history of the people and their cultural tradition to exhibit the Greeks\' contribution to the formation of the Roman Empire.

This thesis investigates 1st-2nd century CE biographer and philosopher, Plutarch's, manipulation and construction of gender ideals in three sets of his Parallel Lives, Coriolanus and Alcibiades, Pelopidas and Marcellus, and Phocion and Cato the Younger in which he presented his particular version of the ideal man and route to manhood. Plutarch discouraged traditional paths to gaining masculine status and simultaneously promoted a type of masculinity that benefited other aspects of his identity, particularly promoting his social and economic position and ethnicity. He asserted throughout that martial men were not in control of their emotions and therefore were incomplete men. Plutarch then promoted the study of Hellenic education, or paideia, and philosophy as the route to ideal manhood. This sub-discourse served as a reaction to Roman rule and the position of Greek men in the Roman Empire. Although Plutarch wrote centuries after the Roman annexation of Greece, he and his contemporaries continued to negotiate and redefine the complex power relations that existed between Greece and Rome. Living and writing at the beginning of the Second Sophistic (60-230 CE), Plutarch's work reflects a wider phenomenon that was occurring within Greece between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE. This study is therefore multi-layered, investigating not only how gender ideology is constructed and redefined but also how it can be manipulated to suit social and political circumstances in order to participate in discourses about identity, authority and power.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America. / Vita. "Select bibliography": p. [v]-vii.

Submitted by Erika Demachki (erikademachki@gmail.com) on 2015-01-16T17:24:23Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Tese - Edson Arantes Junior - 2014.pdf: 2919279 bytes, checksum: 425dfaf788c047db9321a649ce1f7df3 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Erika Demachki (erikademachki@gmail.com) on 2015-01-16T17:41:37Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Tese - Edson Arantes Junior - 2014.pdf: 2919279 bytes, checksum: 425dfaf788c047db9321a649ce1f7df3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-01-16T17:41:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Tese - Edson Arantes Junior - 2014.pdf: 2919279 bytes, checksum: 425dfaf788c047db9321a649ce1f7df3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-10-09 / Lucian of Samosat was an important interpreter of the Roman Empire, his writings were about a varied of topics. People who study about this writer focused on two possibilities for understanding his political stance: on one hand, there are authors who consider he is disconnected from his time and sociopolitical context; on the other hand, there are those who see him as a political activist opposed to Rome. In this Thesis, we consider that Lucian has an ambiguous position, since he identifies himself as Syrian, underscores his entire Hellenic education and criticizes aspects of Roman political culture. However, we believe that he was aware of the benefits that the empire brought all dominated peoples. Thus, we can say that he was a writer who collaborated with the maintenance of the imperial system. To prove this hypothesis, we analyze his famous satirical dialogues, which were often disregarded by his interpreters. Known for combining the dour philosophical dialogue with sarcastic comedy, we understand that the writer intended to produce laughter, which would turn to the mobilization of thought. We restrict our investigation to the dialogues that use mythology as subject. The myths were thought as components of a cultural memory and thus are presented within the limits of the Roman memory system. This selection was formally organized on topics related to political power and its everyday manifestations. Thus, we are concerned with the Lucianic representation of assemblies, tyrants and the relations of the deities among them and especially with Zeus. We understand that Lucian did a thorough exegesis of his reality, highlighting and criticizing abusive postures. In his dialogues, we can see other possible dimensions of interpretation of political power in the Roman Empire. / Luciano de Samósata foi um importante intérprete do Império Romano, sua prosa versou sobre uma infinidade de temas. Os estudiosos desse escritor se concentraram em duas possibilidades de compreensão para sua postura política: de um lado, há os autores que consideram o sírio desvinculado de seu tempo e de seu contexto sociopolítico; do outro, existem os que o veem como um militante político contrário a Roma. Nesta Tese, consideramos que Luciano apresenta um posicionamento ambíguo, uma vez que ele se identifica como sírio, ressalta toda a sua formação helênica e critica aspectos da cultura política romana. Entretanto, acreditamos que ele estava consciente dos benefícios que o Império trazia a todos os povos dominados. Dessa forma, podemos dizer que ele era um escritor que colaborava com a manutenção do sistema imperial. Para comprovar essa hipótese, deslocamos a indagação para os famosos diálogos satíricos que costumam ser desconsiderados pelos intérpretes de Luciano. Conhecido por unir o sisudo diálogo filosófico à sarcástica comédia, entendemos que o escritor tinha a intenção de produzir o riso, que se voltaria para a mobilização do pensamento. Restringimos nossa investigação aos diálogos que utilizam a mitologia como eixo temático. Os mitos foram pensados como elementos que compõem uma memória cultural e, dessa forma, são apresentados nos limites do regime de memória romano. Essa seleção formal foi organizada em tópicos referentes ao poder político e a suas manifestações cotidianas. Assim, preocupamo-nos com a representação luciânica das assembleias, dos tiranos e das relações das divindades entre si e, principalmente, com Zeus. Entendemos que Luciano fez uma profunda exegese de sua realidade, evidenciando e criticando posturas abusivas. Em seus diálogos, podemos ver outras dimensões possíveis da interpretação do poder político no império romano.

Clement of Alexandria, active in the second half of the second century AD, is one of the first Christian authors to explain and defend the nascent religion in the terms of Greek philosophy and in relation to Greek paideia. His major work, the Stromateis, is a lengthy commentary on the true gnosis of the Christian faith, with no apparent overarching structure or organisational principle, replete with quotations from biblical, Jewish, Greek 'gnostic' and Christian works of all genres. This thesis seeks to read this complex and erudite text in conversation with what has been termed the ‘Second Sophistic’, the efflorescence of elite Greek literature under the Roman empire. We will examine the the text as a performance of authorial persona, competing in the agonistic marketplace of Greek paideia. Clement presents himself as a philosophical teacher in a diadoche from the apostles, arrogating to himself a kind of apostolic authority which appeals to both philosophical notions of intellectual credibility and Christian notions of the authentic handing down of tradition. We will also examine how the work engages key thematic concerns of the period, particularly discourses of intellectual eclecticism and ethnicity, challenging both Greek and Roman forms of hegemony to create a space for Christian identity. Lastly, this thesis will critically examine the Stromateis' intertextual relationship with the Homeric epics; the Iliad and the Odyssey are used as a testing ground for Christian self-positioning in relation to Greek culture as a whole. As we trace this variable relationship, we will also see the cross-fertilisation of reading strategies between Homer and the bible; these developing complex allegorical methods not only presage the rise of Neoplatonism, but also lay the foundations for changes in cultural authority which accompany the Christianisaton of the Roman empire in the centuries after Clement.

La présente thèse propose une recherche sur la tradition textuelle et l’édition critique du discours Εἰς Ῥώμην (En l’honneur de Rome) d’Aelius Aristide (IIe siècle apr. J.-C.). Le discours, prononcé à Rome en 144 apr. J.-C., est un éloge de l’Empire romain. La première édition critique du discours fut publiée par B. Keil en 1898 ; au cours du XXe siècle deux philologues ont préparé des éditions comportant un texte critique, en s’appuyant sur l’apparat de Keil. La thèse est organisée en une introduction générale et deux parties, suivies par la bibliographie et quatre annexes. La première partie est consacrée à la recherche sur la tradition textuelle du discours, et est structurée en six chapitres. La deuxième partie consiste dans l’édition critique du discours En l’honneur de Rome, avec apparat critique et des témoignages de la tradition indirecte. Le texte grec est suivi par un apparat complémentaire donnant les leçons des manuscrits mineurs et des notes critiques. / The purpose of the present thesis is to perform a research on the textual tradition and the critical edition of Aelius Aristides’ speech Εἰς Ῥώμην (To Rome) (2nd century CE). Delivered in Rome in 144 CE, this speech is a praise of the Roman Empire. The first critical edition of the speech was published by B. Keil in 1898; in the 20th century, two philologists prepared editions with critical text, based on the apparatus of Keil. The thesis consists of a general introduction and two parts, followed by the bibliography, and four appendices. The first part explains the research on the textual tradition of the speech, and is structured in six chapters. The second part consists of the critical edition of the speech To Rome, with critical apparatus and the testimonies of the indirect tradition. The Greek text is followed by a complementary apparatus offering the variant readings of the minor manuscripts and some critical notes.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:39:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 6810166 bytes, checksum: 72862ec585981c3324a09618bb6118e9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-02-14 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / This research work, entitled The human and the divine in Zeus Rants, by Lucian of Samosata , analyses Lucian's mentioned text, in order to identify, through comparative and theoretical approaches, the articulation of comic and dramatic resources as formal elements of literary composition and recreation of the ancient Greek canon, examining dramatic traits which are particular to Lucian's poetics. This work analyses the action, focusing on the construction of the characters in the dialogue, considering its intrinsic relation to the representation of the philosopher, the orator, the rhetoric master and the deities. Essential influences that help understand Lucian's text were considered in this analysis, such as the historical moment of the Second Sophistic in the II d.C and the contradictions in Greece under the domain of imperial Rome; the condition of the foreigner as an element of Lucian's poetics, in which the representation of a dislocated paideia tradition is present and constant; the fusion of philosophic dialogue with dialogues inspired by Tragedy and Comedy in the recreation of the historical and artistic past through the literary mimesis. From the selected theories about literary genres, Greek society, laughter and humor, the dramatic effects, among others, the chosen concepts were analyzed in the work through readings of the Spanish and the English versions compared in the light of the original Greek text, applying the hypothesis presented in the theoretical framework. The study led us to confirm the initial hypothesis that Lucian of Samosata recreated the Hellenic tradition both in a dramatic and comic way by placing together in Zeus Rants the Greek literary and rhetoric creation, submitting them to particular elements of his poetics, which brings back and dethrones the canonical places of religion, philosophy and Greek oratory. / A finalidade da presente pesquisa, intitulada "FIANDO O FADO DOS DEUSES: O HUMANO E O DIVINO EM ZEUS TRÁGICO, DE LUCIANO DE SAMÓSATA", é estudar o texto Zeus Trágico de Luciano de Samósata, procurando identificar, através da análise teórica e comparativa, a articulação dos recursos de dramaticidade e comicidade, enquanto elementos formais de composição literária e recriação do cânone antigo grego, examinando quais traços dramáticos acentuam as características da poética luciânica. Nosso estudo atém-se à analise da ação, focalizando a construção das personagens no diálogo, sobretudo, em relação intrínseca com a representação das figuras do filósofo, do orador, do mestre de retórica e das divindades. Partimos daquilo que consideramos influências essenciais para a leitura do texto luciânico: o momento histórico da Segunda Sofística no século II d.C. e as contradições da Grécia sob o comando imperial de Roma; a condição de estrangeiro como marca da poética luciânica, na qual a representação do deslocamento da tradição da paideia se faz presente e constante; a fusão do diálogo filosófico com os diálogos da Tragédia e da Comédia, na recriação do passado histórico e artístico através da mimesis literária. A partir das teorias selecionadas sobre os gêneros literários, a sociedade grega, o riso e o humor, os efeitos dramáticos, entre outras, aferimos a validade dos conceitos estudados analisando a obra, comparando as versões em espanhol e inglês à luz do texto original grego, utilizando as hipóteses elencadas na fundamentação teórica para a análise do Zeus Trágico. A pesquisa demonstrou, de acordo com nossas perspectivas iniciais, que Luciano de Samósata recriou a tradição helênica de forma dramática e cômica ao amalgamar no Zeus Trágico a criação retórica e literária grega aos elementos próprios de sua poética, os quais retomam e destronam os lugares canônicos da religiosidade, da filosofia e da oratória gregas.