Thesis--Freiburg i Br. / Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. 345-349).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 1910.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1965. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Four Latin panegyrics survive from the period 289 to 298. They originate from Gaul. The empire was governed by collegiate rule, with Diocletian and Maximian joint Augusti (the Dyarchy) until 293, when the imperial college was expanded to four (the Tetrarchy) with the promotion to the subordinate rank of Caesar of Constantius and Galerius. To meet the threats of usurpers and external enemies, the emperors exercised their authority in different parts of the Empire and were rarely together. The creation of collegiate government posed a novel challenge for panegyrists; they had to balance the impulse to praise the individual addressee with the need to integrate him into the wider government. These potentially competing demands were intensified by the circumstances of the delivery of the speeches, since loyalty had to be expressed to both present and absent emperors. A tension existed between the ideologies of governmental unity and individualism. A texture of tension and resolution is generated in the four speeches. The dynamics of vocative address are used to articulate loyalty. Figurations of the unity of government are employed to signal the relationships between the emperors and their resulting cosmic significance. Individual profiles are cut for the emperors primarily through the use of mythological and historical exempla. The signa Jovius and Herculius, which the emperors assumed, are exploited to characterize and differentiate them. In their detail and overall ideologies, differences between the four speeches are distinct. Each orator adapted the conventions of the genre to an evolving political landscape; furthermore, varying and sometimes competing loyalties are revealed. Panegyric is seen to be capable of great versatility and nuance.

This thesis is a study of selected speeches of Abraham Lincoln in their historical continuum.

Luke’s use and interpretation of his “Scriptures” in acts was investigated on the explicit quotations to be found within the Petrine and Pauline speeches. It became clear that this reflects a threefold problem which could best be described as texthistorical, methodological and hermeneutical in nature. It was established under the textcritical aspect of the problem, that Luke made use of the scrolls of the Torah, Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets and the Psalms. The reconstructed textreading of the Septuagint Textvorlage which he used for his explicit quotations in the Petrine and Pauline speeches, seldom differed from existing LXX texts. Those specific differences seem to be closer to the existing Hebrew versions. Pre-Lukan knowledge of some of the quotations could be found in other literature from early Judaism (especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and early Christianity (Paul, Mark and Hebrews), but convincing evidence was also found that Luke himself may have checked several of these quotations again and changed them when applying them in their new context. Two things pointed in this direction: (a) he sometimes quoted longer passages than those known from former traditions, as was the case in the quoted texts from Joel 2(3) and Psalm 15(16) in the second Petrine speech, and (b) he reflected knowledge of the broader context from which those quoted texts were TAKEN. The origin of the remaining quoted texts from the six speeches which were investigated, do not show sufficient proof to assume knowledge from existing written sources, and could therefore be ascribed to Luke himself. The investigation on the methodological aspect of the problem has confirmed that Luke’s explicit quotations are to be found, almost exclusively, in the speeches. His usage of his Scriptural quotations functioned on two levels: (a) and informative level, which focused on events from the past and which (especially) substantiated the events described in the Jesus-kerygma. They have a strong christological tendency, especially in the missionary speeches. But also (b) a normative level, which focused on the present and future and which is presented in a compelling manner to the current hearers (readers). It has a strong prophetic tendency. The hermeneutical aspect of the problem made it clear that Luke’s understanding of his Scriptures is to be placed within the broader frame of this presentation of the salvation-history. This is done from the perspective of a Theo-centric approach, in which God always remains the Subject, while it is being mediated in a pneumatological-prophetical manner by the prophets and fathers of old, and the apostles (here Peter and Paul) of the new age. They are capable and authoritative witnesses who could interpret those Scriptures. The content of the prophecy itself is presented in a kerygmatic form. It deals with specific themes which are coming from their real historical context and which are then related to God’s general and universal plan of salvation via the name of the “kurios”. The quotations function then within the aspects of the Lukan eschatology, Christology and soteriology. / Thesis (DD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted

The purpose of this study is to examine what Barry Goldwater did in his 1963 speeches before Republican audiences in order to project himself as the candidate for nomination, to consider the persuasive appeals he made and their rhetorical merit.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine what Joseph Weldon Bailey, a speaker of recognized ability, did in his congressional and campaign speeches to persuade people to his point of view.

This essay provides a comparison of Trump’s rhetoric to fascist and populist ideology through an analysis and politolinguistic framing of the usage of apophasis, mesarchia, and pathos in Trump content spanning the first six months of his candidacy for the 2016 U.S. presidency seat. This account finds that Trump is decidedly Ur-Fascist or populist, and cannot be neither of the two, is likely both Ur-Fascist and populist, and leans more in favor of populist ideology given the analyses undertaken. This account ultimately aims to have supported critical discourse analysis (CDA) and politiolinguistics in support of these approaches as rigorous political tools, and to have encouraged the pursuit of political and civil awareness.

No description available.