Nas últimas décadas, assistimos a uma verdadeira reabilitação da autoconsciência retórica – com Hayden White no papel de arauto – no âmbito da historiografia. Contudo, embora o trabalho de White tenha se mostrado para muitos – entre os quais me incluo – como uma tentativa de ―avanço‖ em nossa autoconsciência, ele foi, paradoxalmente, muitas vezes visto e apresentado em discursos escandalizados como sinônimo de ―retrocesso‖ e ―obscurantismo‖. Persuadido do contrário – de que o ―ceticismo‖ de White não é um mal – prejudicial, contraproducente ou pernicioso ao nosso ofício –, eu analiso críticas desferidas ao dito ―relativismo linguístico‖. Tendo em vista a controvérsia filosófica da linguagem como portadora de referencialidade ocorrida entre a primeira sofística e Platão no Mundo Antigo, demonstro como as censuras de Carlo Ginzburg – o mais virulento de seus críticos – buscaram fundamento na argumentação platônico-aristotélica contra o relativismo da primeira sofística. Reapresento também argumentos de outros historiadores escandalizados com o trabalho de White para evidenciar que um tópos comum na argumentação desses críticos constitui-se como platonismo: a noção de que o ―narrativismo‖ conduz ao dilema teórico da impossibilidade de dizer o falso, tese atribuída por Platão à primeira sofística, para quem os múltiplos discursos arruinariam a própria noção de verdade. Paralelamente, a fim de demonstrar que esse dilema existe apenas no horizonte platônico (que compartimenta verdade e ficção em dois blocos distintos e separados), reavalio a relação entre história, verdade e ficção. Por fim, e considerando a linguagem como um elemento inexpugnável do discurso nas ciências humanas, defendo as perspectivas de White e da primeira sofística contra o voo platônico de superação da nossa inevitável condição humana. / In the last decades, we have witnessed a true rehabilitation of rhetorical self-conscience – with Hayden White in the Herald paper – in the context of historiography. However, while White's work has been shown for many – including myself – as an attempt to ―advance‖ in our self-consciousness, he was, paradoxically, often seen and presented in scandalized discourses as a synonym for ―setback‖ and ―obscurantism‖. Persuaded otherwise – that the White‘s ―skepticism‖ is not an evil – harmful, counterproductive or pernicious to our craft – i analyze the criticisms triggered to the so-called ―linguistic relativism.‖ Considering the philosophical controversy of language as ―carrier of referentiality‖ occurred between the first sophistic and Plato in the Ancient World, I demonstrate how the reproaches of Carlo Ginzburg – the most virulent of his critics – sought essentials in the platonic-aristotelian arguments against the relativist of the first sophistry. I evaluate as well arguments of other scandalized historians with White's work to show that a common topos in the argument of these critics constitutes itself as Platonism: the notion that the ―narrativism‖ leads to the theoretical dilemma of the impossibility of say the false, argument given by Plato to first sophistic, and to whom the multiple discourses would undermine the very notion of truth. In parallel, in order to demonstrate that this dilemma exists only in the platonic horizon (which compartmentalize truth and fiction in two distinct and separate blocks), i evaluate again the relation between history, truth and fiction. Finally, and considering the language as an inexpugnable element of discourse in the human sciences, I advocate the prospects of White and the first sophistic against platonic flight overcoming our inevitable human condition.

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.

Nas últimas décadas, assistimos a uma verdadeira reabilitação da autoconsciência retórica – com Hayden White no papel de arauto – no âmbito da historiografia. Contudo, embora o trabalho de White tenha se mostrado para muitos – entre os quais me incluo – como uma tentativa de ―avanço‖ em nossa autoconsciência, ele foi, paradoxalmente, muitas vezes visto e apresentado em discursos escandalizados como sinônimo de ―retrocesso‖ e ―obscurantismo‖. Persuadido do contrário – de que o ―ceticismo‖ de White não é um mal – prejudicial, contraproducente ou pernicioso ao nosso ofício –, eu analiso críticas desferidas ao dito ―relativismo linguístico‖. Tendo em vista a controvérsia filosófica da linguagem como portadora de referencialidade ocorrida entre a primeira sofística e Platão no Mundo Antigo, demonstro como as censuras de Carlo Ginzburg – o mais virulento de seus críticos – buscaram fundamento na argumentação platônico-aristotélica contra o relativismo da primeira sofística. Reapresento também argumentos de outros historiadores escandalizados com o trabalho de White para evidenciar que um tópos comum na argumentação desses críticos constitui-se como platonismo: a noção de que o ―narrativismo‖ conduz ao dilema teórico da impossibilidade de dizer o falso, tese atribuída por Platão à primeira sofística, para quem os múltiplos discursos arruinariam a própria noção de verdade. Paralelamente, a fim de demonstrar que esse dilema existe apenas no horizonte platônico (que compartimenta verdade e ficção em dois blocos distintos e separados), reavalio a relação entre história, verdade e ficção. Por fim, e considerando a linguagem como um elemento inexpugnável do discurso nas ciências humanas, defendo as perspectivas de White e da primeira sofística contra o voo platônico de superação da nossa inevitável condição humana. / In the last decades, we have witnessed a true rehabilitation of rhetorical self-conscience – with Hayden White in the Herald paper – in the context of historiography. However, while White's work has been shown for many – including myself – as an attempt to ―advance‖ in our self-consciousness, he was, paradoxically, often seen and presented in scandalized discourses as a synonym for ―setback‖ and ―obscurantism‖. Persuaded otherwise – that the White‘s ―skepticism‖ is not an evil – harmful, counterproductive or pernicious to our craft – i analyze the criticisms triggered to the so-called ―linguistic relativism.‖ Considering the philosophical controversy of language as ―carrier of referentiality‖ occurred between the first sophistic and Plato in the Ancient World, I demonstrate how the reproaches of Carlo Ginzburg – the most virulent of his critics – sought essentials in the platonic-aristotelian arguments against the relativist of the first sophistry. I evaluate as well arguments of other scandalized historians with White's work to show that a common topos in the argument of these critics constitutes itself as Platonism: the notion that the ―narrativism‖ leads to the theoretical dilemma of the impossibility of say the false, argument given by Plato to first sophistic, and to whom the multiple discourses would undermine the very notion of truth. In parallel, in order to demonstrate that this dilemma exists only in the platonic horizon (which compartmentalize truth and fiction in two distinct and separate blocks), i evaluate again the relation between history, truth and fiction. Finally, and considering the language as an inexpugnable element of discourse in the human sciences, I advocate the prospects of White and the first sophistic against platonic flight overcoming our inevitable human condition.

Nas últimas décadas, assistimos a uma verdadeira reabilitação da autoconsciência retórica – com Hayden White no papel de arauto – no âmbito da historiografia. Contudo, embora o trabalho de White tenha se mostrado para muitos – entre os quais me incluo – como uma tentativa de ―avanço‖ em nossa autoconsciência, ele foi, paradoxalmente, muitas vezes visto e apresentado em discursos escandalizados como sinônimo de ―retrocesso‖ e ―obscurantismo‖. Persuadido do contrário – de que o ―ceticismo‖ de White não é um mal – prejudicial, contraproducente ou pernicioso ao nosso ofício –, eu analiso críticas desferidas ao dito ―relativismo linguístico‖. Tendo em vista a controvérsia filosófica da linguagem como portadora de referencialidade ocorrida entre a primeira sofística e Platão no Mundo Antigo, demonstro como as censuras de Carlo Ginzburg – o mais virulento de seus críticos – buscaram fundamento na argumentação platônico-aristotélica contra o relativismo da primeira sofística. Reapresento também argumentos de outros historiadores escandalizados com o trabalho de White para evidenciar que um tópos comum na argumentação desses críticos constitui-se como platonismo: a noção de que o ―narrativismo‖ conduz ao dilema teórico da impossibilidade de dizer o falso, tese atribuída por Platão à primeira sofística, para quem os múltiplos discursos arruinariam a própria noção de verdade. Paralelamente, a fim de demonstrar que esse dilema existe apenas no horizonte platônico (que compartimenta verdade e ficção em dois blocos distintos e separados), reavalio a relação entre história, verdade e ficção. Por fim, e considerando a linguagem como um elemento inexpugnável do discurso nas ciências humanas, defendo as perspectivas de White e da primeira sofística contra o voo platônico de superação da nossa inevitável condição humana. / In the last decades, we have witnessed a true rehabilitation of rhetorical self-conscience – with Hayden White in the Herald paper – in the context of historiography. However, while White's work has been shown for many – including myself – as an attempt to ―advance‖ in our self-consciousness, he was, paradoxically, often seen and presented in scandalized discourses as a synonym for ―setback‖ and ―obscurantism‖. Persuaded otherwise – that the White‘s ―skepticism‖ is not an evil – harmful, counterproductive or pernicious to our craft – i analyze the criticisms triggered to the so-called ―linguistic relativism.‖ Considering the philosophical controversy of language as ―carrier of referentiality‖ occurred between the first sophistic and Plato in the Ancient World, I demonstrate how the reproaches of Carlo Ginzburg – the most virulent of his critics – sought essentials in the platonic-aristotelian arguments against the relativist of the first sophistry. I evaluate as well arguments of other scandalized historians with White's work to show that a common topos in the argument of these critics constitutes itself as Platonism: the notion that the ―narrativism‖ leads to the theoretical dilemma of the impossibility of say the false, argument given by Plato to first sophistic, and to whom the multiple discourses would undermine the very notion of truth. In parallel, in order to demonstrate that this dilemma exists only in the platonic horizon (which compartmentalize truth and fiction in two distinct and separate blocks), i evaluate again the relation between history, truth and fiction. Finally, and considering the language as an inexpugnable element of discourse in the human sciences, I advocate the prospects of White and the first sophistic against platonic flight overcoming our inevitable human condition.

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.

On examine ici deux concepts fondamentaux touchant la genèse et la structure du système platonicien, en proposant de les rapporter à deux modèles empruntés à la mathématique ancienne. Le premier est un postulat, usuellement désigné sous le nom d’axiome d’Eudoxe – Archimède, le second un algorithme de calcul : l’anthyphérèse. Tous deux ressortissent à la théorie mathématique développée par Théétète à la suite des travaux logistiques de Théodore ; il a semblé que leur articulation constituait le socle théorique de la réponse platonicienne à la thèse protagoréenne de l’homo mensura. On a suggéré de replacer cette dernière dans le cadre d’une polémique ancienne regardant la consistance du concept mathématique de mesure, dont la notion naïve fut remise en cause par la découverte successive des rapports incommensurables puis d’ensembles non–archimédiens : les angles mixtilignes. Cela impliquait de réexaminer les rapports possibles entre mathématiques et sophistique : on a choisi à cet effet l’exemple de la quadratrice d’Hippias d’Élis. Il convenait aussi d’envisager la liaison étroite qu’entretiennent la dialectique platonicienne et cette science métrétique rénovée que Platon nomme «juste mesure». On a tenté de montrer comment celle-ci pouvait informer certains procédés de celle-là, à partir de l’étude de quelques passages des dialogues qui jalonnent la dernière période de Platon. La théorie de la division appliquée aux Idées, comme l’analyse et la constitution des mixtes cosmologique, politique et individuel ont ainsi paru pouvoir être examinées dans le cadre de cette hypothèse. / Two mathematical notions seem to structure Plato’s theory of measure. The first one is a postulate, usually known as the “Eudoxus axiom”, the other an algorithm called “anthuphairesis”. Both of them belonged to the mathematical theory developed by Theaetetus expanding Theodorus’ logistics. The main hypothesis of this work is that they constitute the core of Plato’s response against the Homo mensura thesis elaborated by Protagoras. We have thus proposed to replace Protagoras’ theory in the enlarged context of a serious crisis affecting the logical consistency of the mathematical notion of measure, provoked by the discovery of incommensurable magnitudes as well as non–Archimedean sets, exemplified by mixtilinear angles. This implied to examine anew the links between ancient sophistic and mathematics, and particularly Plato’s critics against Hippias’ quadratrix. It was also required to study the close relation between platonic dialectic and the new art of measurement exposed by Plato in the Statesman. Thus, by studying some passages mainly taken from Plato’s last dialogues, an attempt has been made to show how the higher art of measurement could inform dialectics. Plato’s theory of division, as well as the analysis and the generation of the mixed structures which constitute the universe, the city and the individual man have thus been tentatively reduced to this model.

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.