Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2005. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 663-677).

No description available.

This thesis is about ‘military manuals’ produced in the first few centuries of the Roman imperial period. It argues that these texts merit far more attention and appreciation than they have received in the scholarship so far. I will explore areas such as the way in which their authors order and rank Greek and Roman knowledge, engage with ideas about knowledge and power, help construct identity and discuss ethics and behavior. In the first chapter I will determine whether the authors operate within a specific ‘genre’, or ‘genres’, of military writing. Then I will explore how the texts relate to other traditions of technical texts, questions of audience, and finally the issue of their practicality. The second chapter will examine how authors tackle the issue of ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ knowledge, categorize, rank and use it for self-promotion. We will see how Roman knowledge is both subverted but also praised, and how Greek knowledge is at the same time placed above Roman knowledge and integrated into a narrative of continuity with it. The third chapter will focus on the use of Greek knowledge in the construction of Roman identity. I will explore how ‘manuals’ play a part in the identity of the Roman Empire, fitting into a picture of unity in diversity, and show how they contribute to Hadrian’s self-presentation. The fourth chapter will examine the ethical component in manuals. I will determine whether there was an ethical code of conduct in battle in the Classical world and whether it was different from general ethical norms. Then, we will examine whether our texts engage in any way with this ‘code’ and whether their individual approaches have anything in common or are fundamentally different.

Lorsque, au IVe siècle, les Romains rendirent hommage à la sagesse, ils érigèrent une statue de Pythagore. Pline l’Ancien s’en étonne : pourquoi n’a-t-on pas plutôt choisi Socrate ? Cette interrogation reflète l’intégration progressive de la figure du philosophe athénien à Rome, depuis le IIe siècle av. J.C. jusqu’à l’œuvre de Sénèque qui intériorise le modèle socratique d’enseignement.Est d’abord réuni le corpus exhaustif des occurrences de Socrate dans une perspective diachronique. Les passages sont contextualisés dans l’économie de l’œuvre, son genre et les objectifs de chaque auteur. La source grecque est, si possible, identifiée : la présence de Socrate sert alors de marqueur de la lecture des textes de Platon, de Xénophon, mais aussi d’autres Socratiques comme Eschine.Dans un second temps, les textes sont étudiés selon des regroupements chronologiques et thématiques : est alors définie une double réception de Socrate, entre valorisation et mépris, qui s’articule autour de sa grandeur, son rôle fondateur pour les écoles de pensée hellénistiques, sa mort courageuse et, à rebours, sa dénonciation de la rhétorique ou le caractère inutile des propos des Socratiques pour lutter contre les passions. Au mode de vie philosophique qu’incarne Socrate s’oppose parfois celui défini par le mos maiorum, ou encore par le poète élégiaque. Se dévoilent différentes interprétations de Socrate, ancêtre du cynisme et du stoïcisme, probabiliste ou transcendantaliste, ouvrant ainsi la voie à un transfert culturel des œuvres, mais aussi de leurs exégèses. Que ce soit dans une perspective historiographique, philosophique ou littéraire, Socrate devient peu à peu un exemplum, un modèle de vie. / When, in 343 B.C., the Romans paid tribute to wisdom, they built a statue of Pythagoras. Why was not Socrates chosen instead ? Pliny the Elder wonders. This interrogation reflects the progressive integration of the figure of the Athenian philosopher in Rome, from the second century B.C. until the work of Seneca which internalises the Socratic teaching model.At first, the exhaustive corpus of the occurrences of Socrates is gathered in a diachronic perspective. The passages are contextualized in the entire work, its genre and the purposes of every author. The Greek sources are, when possible, identified : the presence of Socrates serves then as a marker for the reading of the texts of Plato, Xenophon, but also other Socratics like Aeschines.Secondly, the texts are studied according to chronological and thematic groupings : a double reception of Socrates is then defined, between praise and contempt, which articulates around his greatness, his founding role for the Hellenistic philosophic schools, his courageous death and, on the contrary, his denunciation of rhetoric or the fact that Socratics’ theories are useless to fight against passions. The philosophic lifestyle embodied by Socrates sometimes contrasts with the one defined by the mos maiorum, or by the elegiac poets. Various interpretations of Socrates come to light, as an ancestor of Cynicism and Stoicism, as a sceptic or a transcendentalist, paving the way for a cultural transfer of the Greek philosophical works but also of their exegeses. Whether it be in an historiographic, philosophic or literary perspective, Socrates gradually becomes an exemplum, a model of life.