The question “How does Revelation interact with the Roman Empire?” weaves its way through the past 125 years of scholarly research on the Apocalypse. Yet, flawed methodologies, false assumptions, and limited trajectories have led to poor conclusions that posture Revelation as nothing more than a vitriolic attack on the Roman Empire that intends to incite, reveal, and/or remind Christians of imperial evil. This thesis challenges this academic narrative of the Apocalypse through the development and implementation of the Alter-Imperial paradigm. Repositioning the theoretical background of the imperial inquiry around Empire Studies, the Alter-Imperial paradigm applies insights from Postcolonial criticism and “examinations of dominance” to engage the complexities of the relationship between the sovereign(s) and subject(s) of a society—a dynamic far more intricate than either rebellion or acquiescence. From this disposition, various forms of Roman propaganda (from Augustus to Domitian) are explored to surface the Sovereign Narrative saturating the public transcript and immersing the subjects in key messages of absolute dominance, divine favor, and imperial benevolence. The date of Revelation’s composition, then, is established to isolate the socio-historical analysis to the Flavian dynasty, paying particular attention to the viewpoint of the oppressed and the question of “persecution.” The Flavian dynasty’s essential development of an anti-Jewish environment (intensified in Domitian’s reign) offers not only a contentious context for Christian communities—still viewed as indistinguishable from Jewish communities by Roman elite—but also indelible images of imperial propaganda through which subject texts, like Revelation, can interact with the empire. From this vantage point, the Alter-Imperial paradigm offers fresh interpretative possibilities for familiar (and even forgotten) texts, such as Revelation 20:7-10. This enigmatic passage depicts the release of Satan from a 1,000 year imprisonment at a climactic moment in the Apocalypse, and yet, this text is widely neglected in Revelation scholarship. Parallels to Roman triumphal processions (a central element in Flavian propaganda), however, demonstrate that Revelation 20:7- 10 depicts Satan as the bound enemy leader marching in God’s triumphal procession. Nevertheless, the Alter-Imperial paradigm does not stagnate at intriguing textual parallels. Indeed, this interpretation of Revelation 20:7-10 postures the interpreter to poignantly address the question: “How does Revelation interact [not merely subvert] the empire?” Specifically, the use of Roman imagery in the subject text does not necessitate an “anti-imperial” intent, but may simply be the grammar with which the subject text constructs their Alter-Empire. In fact, the Alter-Imperial paradigm suggests that to reduce Revelation to an anti-Roman document intent on the empire’s destruction is to over-exaggerate Rome’s significance in the subject text and, then, to miss its true target—the construction of the Alter-Empire through the destruction of the true enemy, Satan.

This dissertation centers on Andrea Mantegna’s masterful series of nine canvases, the Triumphs of Caesar, painted for the Gonzaga family of Mantua in the late Quattrocento. The project considers the history of the series, including the circumstances of its commission, the use of the Triumphs within the court culture of Mantua, and the recontextualization of the series in England after its sale to King Charles I in 1630. I argue that the series was intended to serve as a form of permanent palatial decoration, and that only through a series of unforeseen events was the Triumphs ultimately used as a backdrop for theatrical performances. At Hampton Court Palace, outside of London, the Triumphs took on a new role, one which changed over the centuries, dependent upon the occupant of the palace. The first chapter explores the iconography of the Triumphs of Caesar and addresses Mantegna’s possible visual and literary sources. I situate the series within the context of Renaissance triumphal imagery and argue that the strictly classical nature of Mantegna’s Triumphs sets it apart from other fifteenth-century depictions. The second chapter turns to the patronage of the series. Though the majority of scholars believe either Lodovico II or Francesco II Gonzaga to have been the patron, I suggest instead that it was Federico I Gonzaga who commissioned the series from Mantegna. I propose that Federico intended to display the Triumphs in the modern palace he was constructing, the Domus Nova, where the series would impress upon visitors both the military might and cultural attainments of the Gonzaga. After Federico’s sudden death, however, his son Francesco inherited the series, and it was only then that the lightweight canvases were put to use as backdrops for theater and other ephemeral events, a topic addressed in chapter three. The fourth and final chapter turns to England and the role of the Triumphs at Hampton Court Palace, the home of the series for the past four centuries. I argue that the Triumphs of Caesar functioned differently for each occupant of the palace in turn, serving as political, cultural, or decorative instruments.

La présente thèse analyse les conditions dans lesquelles les traductions des 'Triumphi' de Pétrarque ont apparu et circulé en France entre les années 1470 et 1550. Ce travail a été structuré selon trois axes de recherche. Cet ouvrage essaye de définir tout d’abord le périmètre de circulation des mises en français du poème allégorique de Pétrarque à partir d’une étude codicologique des témoins connus (contexte de production ; hypothèse de datation ; reconstruction des possibles contextes de circulation ; reconstruction de l’historique plus ou moins récent des manuscrits)afin de reconnaître à l’ensemble de ces traductions l’importance du rôle joué dans la réception de l’oeuvre vulgaire de Pétrarque en France aussi bien que dans le développement du pétrarquisme français. Ensuite, nous avons étudié la question des liens qui relient certaines traductions entre elles. Nous nous sommes occupé tant de l’identification du texte de départ utilisé par chaque traducteur que des relations intertextuelles qui semblent relier certaines mises en français du poème et qui sont apparues au cours du travail d’alignement des textes. La thèse analyse, enfin, la question de la langue de convention de Pétrarque par rapport à sa translation de l’italien en français (assimilation et réutilisation de certains ‘iuncturæ’ typiquement pétrarquiennes) avec le but de vérifier si ces traductions ont pu représenter le premier lieu de codification en français des stylèmes lexicaux les plus typiques du langage littéraire du poète toscan, ainsi que des motifs et de quelques figures de style souvent utilisés par le poète. / This thesis analyses the conditions under which translations of Petrarch’s 'Triumphi' appeared and circulated in France between the years 1470 and 1550. This work has been structured along three research axes. This work first attempts to define the perimeter of the circulation of the French translations of Petrarch’s allegorical poem based on a codicological study of known manuscripts (probable context of production ; hypothesis of dating ; reconstruction of possible contexts of circulation ; reconstruction of the more or less recent history of witnesses) in order to recognize to all of these translations the role played in the reception of Petrarch’s vulgar work in France as well as in the development of French Petrarchism. We were concerned then both with the identification of the source text used by each translator and with the intertextual relations that seem to link certain French translations of the poem and that appeared during the work of aligning the texts. Finally, the thesis analyses the question of the language of Petrarch’s convention in relation to his translation from Italian into French (assimilation and reuse of some typically Petrarchan ‘iuncturæ’) with the aim of verifying whether these translations represented the first place of codification in French of the most typical lexical patterns of the Tuscan poet’s literary language, as well as the motifs and some stylistic figures often used by the poet. / La presente tesi si propone di studiare le condizioni in cui le traduzioni dei Trionfi di Petrarca apparvero e circolarono in Francia tra il 1470 e il 1550. Il lavoro è stato strutturato su tre assi di ricerca. L’opera si propone innanzitutto di definire le reti ove circolarono le diverse traduzioni francesi del poema allegorico del Petrarca sulla base dello studio codicologico dei testimoni noti (probabile contesto di realizzazione ; ipotesi di datazione ; ricostruzione di possibili contesti di circolazione ; ricostruzione della storia più o meno recente dei testimoni), al fine di riconoscere a tutte queste traduzioni il peso giocato nella recezione dell’Opera volgare del Petrarca in Francia e nello sviluppo del petrarchismo francese. Successivamente, è stato svolto uno studio di critica testuale, volto all’identificazione del prototesto italiano utilizzato da ciascun traduttore, esaminando al contempo le relazioni intertestuali che sembrano collegare alcune traduzioni in francese e che sono apparse durante il lavoro di allineamento dei testi. Infine, la tesi analizza la questione della lingua letteraria del Petrarca in relazione alla sua traduzione dall’italiano al francese (assimilazione e riutilizzo di alcune ‘iuncturæ’ tipicamente petrarchesche) al fine di verificare se tali traduzioni abbiano rappresentato, in effetti, il primo luogo di codificazione in francese dei più tipici stilemi lessicali della lingua letteraria del poeta toscano, nonché dei motivi e di alcune figure stilistiche spesso utilizzate dal poeta.

This thesis is concerned with one key aspect of the reception of the vernacular poetry of Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), namely translations and imitations of the Rerum vulgarium fragmenta (Rvf) and Triumphi in English. It aims to provide a more comprehensive survey of the vernacular Petrarch’s legacy to English literature than is currently available, with a particular focus on some hitherto critically neglected texts and authors. It also seeks to ascertain to what degree the socio-historical phenomena of religion, politics, and culture have influenced the translations and imitations in question. The approach has been both chronological and comparative. This strategy will demonstrate with greater clarity the monumental effect of the Elizabethan Reformation on the English reception of Petrarch. It proposes a solution to the problem of the long gap between Geoffrey Chaucer’s re-writing of Rvf 132 and the imitations of Wyatt and Surrey framed in the context of Chaucer’s sophisticated imitative strategy (Chapter I). A fresh reading of Sir Philip Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella is offered which highlights the author’s misgivings about the dangers of textual misinterpretation, a concern he shared with Petrarch (Chapter II). The analysis of Edmund Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion in the same chapter reveals a hitherto undetected Ovidian subtext to Petrarch’s Rvf 190. Chapter III deals with two English versions of the Triumphi: I propose a date for Lord Morley’s translation which suggests it may be the first post- Chaucerian English engagement with Petrarch; new evidence is brought to light which identifies the edition of Petrarch used by William Fowler as the source text for his Triumphs of Petrarcke. The fourth chapter constitutes the most extensive investigation to date of J. M. Synge’s engagement with the Rvf, and deals with the question of translation as subversion. On the theoretical front, it demonstrates how Synge’s use of “folk-speech” challenges Venuti’s binary foreignising/domesticating system of translation categorisation.