The master’s project deals with the pipeline systems of process unit. The design of the industrial pipeline is usually extensive and complex task interwoven with a lot of technical disciplines. Diploma thesis is focused on the strength calculation of the pipeline specified by the ČSN EN standard. The main goal of the calculation is appraisal of the most stressed parts under operating and testing conditions. The diploma thesis is handled with the key aspects that influence the overall concept of the pipeline design as well as the strength calculation.

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.

No description available.

No description available.

Gaius Julius Caesar is not only the most well-known figure in Roman history, but he is also one of the most difficult to understand. Since his assassination, Caesar has played an important role in discussions of political power, imperial government, tyranny, and tyrannicide. While there have been literary treatments of Caesar from William Shakespeare to the present, little has been done to trace the image of Caesar through the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The present work attempts to fill that hole by examining portrayals of Caesar in medieval and early Renaissance texts. An examination of specific authors such as Geoffrey of Monmouth, John of Salisbury, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Petrarch, Salutati, and Bruni, clearly demonstrates that Caesar was consistently portrayed as the first emperor and used to represent the Roman Empire. As the first emperor, representations of Caesar figured significantly in debates about the power of the Church and the Empire, the benefits and downfalls of imperial government, and tyrannicide. Authors were influenced in their portrayals of Caesar by the classical portrayals found in the works of Vergil, Lucan, and Suetonius. Each author's interpretation of Caesar was also impacted by the political and intellectual milieu in which he flourished. Analysis of Caesar's image over this time period serves not only as a part of Caesar historiography, but also provides insight into the ways that scholars write history to understand the world around them.

Gaius Julius Caesar remains one of the most studied characters of antiquity. His personality, political career, and military campaigns have garnered numerous scholarly treatments, as have his alleged aspirations to monarchy and divinity. However, comparatively little detailed work has been done to examine his own personal religiosity and even less attention has been paid to his religion in the context of his military conquests. I argue that Caesar has wrongly been deemed irreligious or skeptical and that his conduct while on campaign demonstrates that he was a religious man. Within the Roman system of religion, ritual participation was more important than faith or belief. Caesar pragmatically manipulated the Romans' flexible religious framework to secure military advantage almost entirely within the accepted bounds of religious conduct. If strict observance of ritual was the measure of Roman religiosity, then Caesar exceeded the religious expectations of his rank and office. The evidence reveals that he was an exemplar of Roman religio throughout both the Gallic Wars (58-51BC) and the subsequent Civil Wars (49-45BC).

A revision of the author's thesis, Heidelberg. / Includes bibliographical references.

Cette thèse étudie le rôle de la pensée morale et politique dans la tragédie moderne (XVIe-XVIIIe siècles), en se concentrant sur un ensemble de pièces néo-latines, françaises, italiennes et anglaises qui représentent la mort du dictateur romain Jules César, auxquelles on a joint Cinna de Corneille. Pour susciter les passions tragiques, la fable doit représenter un personnage, ou un groupe de personnages, qui passe du bonheur au malheur à la suite d’une « faute » moralement ou politiquement ambiguë. Cet enchaînement est particulièrement tragique lorsque la « faute » est au moins partiellement involontaire et résulte d’une forme de nécessité : la tragédie manifeste alors le poids de la « fortune morale ». L’ambiguïté de la « faute » tragique peut revêtir diverses formes ; dans les Mort(s) de César, elle réside d’une part dans le fait que les personnages sont contraints d’agir dans une situation caractérisée par plusieurs antinomies, d’autre part dans le fait que leurs motivations paraissent à certains égards contraires aux justifications qu’ils avancent. La tragédie moderne est profondément réfractaire à la pensée casuiste contemporaine – sous les diverses formes qu’elle prend dans la théorie de l’invention rhétorique, la philosophie morale et politique et l’historiographie –, car elle laisse irrésolus les « cas » moraux et politiques qu’elle expose. Mais Cinna, première « tragédie à fin heureuse » du répertoire français, montre comment il est possible de parvenir à la réconciliation et à une issue moralement et politiquement satisfaisante par-delà les antinomies tragiques. / This dissertation investigates the functions of moral and political thought in modern tragedy (16th-18th centuries), focusing on a group of Neo-Latin, French, Italian and English plays which represent the death of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, as well as on Corneille’s Cinna. In order to provoke the tragic emotions, a fable must represent a character or a group of characters whose fall from happiness into mishap is a consequence of a morally or politically ambiguous “flaw”. This sequence is particularly tragic when the “flaw” is at least partially unintentional and results from a kind of necessity : tragedy thus manifests the importance of “moral luck”. The ambiguity of the tragic “flaw” may arise from different circumstances ; in the plays representing the death of Caesar it consists on the one hand in the antinomies which the characters must face, on the other hand in the fact that their motivations appear in some ways contrary to the arguments they use in order to justify themselves. Modern tragedy is profoundly extraneous to contemporary casuistry (as developed in the rhetorical theory of invention, in moral and political philosophy and in historical writing), in that it leaves moral and political “cases” unsolved. However, Cinna, the first happy-ending tragedy in the French theatre, shows how reconciliation and a morally and politically satisfying ending are possible despite the tragic antinomies.

This thesis examines the motives, methods and successes of opposition to C. Julius Caesar in the period 60-50 leading to the outbreak of civil war in 49. An attempt has been made to distinguish between traditional and innovative methods of opposition. An evaluation of creativity levels and the social acceptability of actions has been conducted in an effort to understand adherence to moral standards in the pre-war period. In Chapter 2, opposition to Caesar in 60 and 59 is examined and found to be fierce, persistent and, despite Caesar ultimately achieving his aims, successful in a limited way. Chapter 3 examines the circumstances of 58-57. Caesar’s position was more firmly secured through the agency of Clodius’ tribunate, during which Cicero was exiled and Cato was removed from the political scene for both political and personal reasons. Examination of opposition to Caesar in Chapter 4 focuses on the period 56-54. It is demonstrated that prior to the conferences of Luca and Ravenna, opposition to Caesar was broadly undertaken by groups or individuals who fomented dissent between Crassus and Pompey in order to undermine the triumvirate as a whole. In 55 opposition to Caesar was nullified by a renewal of the triumvirate. In 54 opposition was resurgent and dominated the courts with limited success. In Chapter 5, opposition to Caesar in the period 53-50 is examined and is shown to be marked by anarchy, attempted reforms and the disintegration of the triumviral alliance. Given widespread impressions of pressure, corruption, violence and breakdown, especially in modern accounts of the period, it is suprising to discover that tactics used by Caesar’s opponents were traditional and socially acceptable for the most part, despite vehement political and personal disagreement. The will of the people was still respected by Caesar’s opponents; popular opinion in 59 was in fact the cause of opposition failure. While the Republic had suffered civil war in the opening decades of the first century BC, the state had resumed constitutional operation prior to 60. Traditional moral values and methods of gaining rank and prestige were still important and continued to be adhered to after 60. Methods of influence and social communication remained largely unchanged in the 50s, and ensured the continuity of political exchange without substantial innovation. From 56 to 54 opposition methods were opportunistic, a result of the renewal of the triumvirate. Caesar’s opponents continued to adhere to traditional political practice, despite dominance of the political machinary by the triumvirate. In 54 Caesar’s opponents gained control of the law courts, which resulted in numerous trials but no break with traditional or socially acceptable behaviour. Opposition between 53 and 50 remained traditional in most cases within an environment marked by anarchy and political stalemate, fueled by the intransigence of Caesar and Pompey who refused to recognise each others’ dignitas. The Civil War, then, was not caused by an extended period of constitutional instability. The Civil War was the result of political deadlock at the end of the 50s, motivated by the social and political inflexibility of a small group of Senators.

This thesis examines the motives, methods and successes of opposition to C. Julius Caesar in the period 60-50 leading to the outbreak of civil war in 49. An attempt has been made to distinguish between traditional and innovative methods of opposition. An evaluation of creativity levels and the social acceptability of actions has been conducted in an effort to understand adherence to moral standards in the pre-war period. In Chapter 2, opposition to Caesar in 60 and 59 is examined and found to be fierce, persistent and, despite Caesar ultimately achieving his aims, successful in a limited way. Chapter 3 examines the circumstances of 58-57. Caesar’s position was more firmly secured through the agency of Clodius’ tribunate, during which Cicero was exiled and Cato was removed from the political scene for both political and personal reasons. Examination of opposition to Caesar in Chapter 4 focuses on the period 56-54. It is demonstrated that prior to the conferences of Luca and Ravenna, opposition to Caesar was broadly undertaken by groups or individuals who fomented dissent between Crassus and Pompey in order to undermine the triumvirate as a whole. In 55 opposition to Caesar was nullified by a renewal of the triumvirate. In 54 opposition was resurgent and dominated the courts with limited success. In Chapter 5, opposition to Caesar in the period 53-50 is examined and is shown to be marked by anarchy, attempted reforms and the disintegration of the triumviral alliance. Given widespread impressions of pressure, corruption, violence and breakdown, especially in modern accounts of the period, it is suprising to discover that tactics used by Caesar’s opponents were traditional and socially acceptable for the most part, despite vehement political and personal disagreement. The will of the people was still respected by Caesar’s opponents; popular opinion in 59 was in fact the cause of opposition failure. While the Republic had suffered civil war in the opening decades of the first century BC, the state had resumed constitutional operation prior to 60. Traditional moral values and methods of gaining rank and prestige were still important and continued to be adhered to after 60. Methods of influence and social communication remained largely unchanged in the 50s, and ensured the continuity of political exchange without substantial innovation. From 56 to 54 opposition methods were opportunistic, a result of the renewal of the triumvirate. Caesar’s opponents continued to adhere to traditional political practice, despite dominance of the political machinary by the triumvirate. In 54 Caesar’s opponents gained control of the law courts, which resulted in numerous trials but no break with traditional or socially acceptable behaviour. Opposition between 53 and 50 remained traditional in most cases within an environment marked by anarchy and political stalemate, fueled by the intransigence of Caesar and Pompey who refused to recognise each others’ dignitas. The Civil War, then, was not caused by an extended period of constitutional instability. The Civil War was the result of political deadlock at the end of the 50s, motivated by the social and political inflexibility of a small group of Senators.