No description available.

No description available.

Critics have long remarked on the differences between the Argonautic epics of Apollonius Rhodius and Valerius Flaccus, and have attempted to understand the latter’s reception of the former. This dissertation calls into question the narrative that Valerius rejected Apollonius' characterization of the hero Jason as defective and sought to recuperate it. Evidence such as each poet’s treatment of his literary predecessors, the semantics of key terms important to the genre and to the heroes themselves, and the political cultures in which the two epics were composed, suggests that in each epic the heroic protagonist Jason is put forth as the best of his peers, the Argonauts, and the one most suited to lead them. The differences between the two Jasons is best explained by a difference in literary trends and political realities between the Ptolemaic Kingdom of the 3rd century BCE and the Flavian Dynasty of the late 1st century CE. Contrary to scholarly depictions of Jason in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica as a "failed" hero, his characterization is an evolution of Homeric trends in a Ptolemaic Alexandrian context, including Hellenistic literary sensibilities and the ideology of kingship. Similarly, the Jason of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica is best understood not as a rejection of Apollonius’ creation, but as an adaptation of it in light of post-Vergilian literary trends and the ideology of the early Flavian Dynasty, which seized power in a civil war. Therefore, both versions of the Argonautica depict Jason in a way that speaks to their respective eras’ understanding of leadership and what constitutes "the best man." / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philosophy. / Fall Semester 2016. / October 31, 2016. / Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, Flavian, Jason, Ptolemaic, Valerius Flaccus / Includes bibliographical references. / Francis Cairns, Professor Directing Dissertation; David Levenson, University Representative; Trevor Luke, Committee Member; Timothy Stover, Committee Member.

Tyrants play a major role in Greek literature and political philosophy, and occupy a certain prominence on the tragic stage. Many city-states, from Athens to Syracuse to Heraclea on the Black Sea, experienced periods in which tyrants exercised power over political life. The prevalent idea of the Greek experience of tyranny is that it was a bad, undesirable form of government. This study departs from this view and embarks on a reconsideration of tyranny and Greek attitudes toward it by looking at how tyrants are portrayed in sources outside of the ancient political theorists, such as Plato and Aristotle. When we explore accounts of Greek tyrants in the historical sources, we find within them a cacophony of voices, recording different perspectives as well as the variety and hybridity of different models of tyranny. Analyzing this cacophony of voices systematically in a thematic and diachronic study of ancient Greek tyranny reveals the sophistication of attitudes toward tyrants; and demonstrates that writers of historical works recognized forms of tyranny aside from the negative, simplistic model advanced in philosophical discussions. In the end, conceptualizing tyranny as a form of sole rule that is limited neither spatially nor temporally sheds light on the endurance of tyranny throughout the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic eras. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2016. / April 25, 2016. / Archaic period, Classical period, historian, tyranny, tyrants / Includes bibliographical references. / James Sickinger, Professor Directing Dissertation; Rafe Blaufarb, University Representative; John Marincola, Committee Member; Jessica Clark, Committee Member.

Gregory Vlastos claims that in the Gorgias Socrates is confident that the elenchos is the only and the final arbiter of moral truth. Traditionally, the object of elenchos has been viewed as not one of moral truth, but one of simply revealing to Socratic interlocutors confusions and muddles within themselves, thereby jarring their unquestioning adherence to some moral dogma. On Vlastos' view, however, Socrates claims that he proves by elenchos that an interlocutor's thesis is false. How can he, when in point of logic all he has proved is that the thesis is inconsistent with the agreed-upon premises in that argument whose truth Socrates does not undertake to establish? While Vlastos attempts to solve what he calls "the problem of elenchos" with all the ingenuity that we have come to expect from him, I argue that there are two major obstacles in his way. First, elenchos is not the only arbiter of moral truth in the Gorgias Socrates has a number of other reasons for believing certain things, but according to Vlastos, Socrates looks to elenchos, and to nothing but that, for the truth of his beliefs. I argue that, first, Vlastos' characterization of elenchos is unsatisfactory, for on his criteria it is difficult to distinguish it from other kinds of arguments. This in turn seriously hampers a proper evaluation of elenctic arguments. I then show that at least in this dialogue Socrates has certain religious beliefs that he holds without relying on elenchos, and so elenchos is not the only avenue for acquiring moral knowledge. Under Vlastos' correcting lenses, Socrates emerges also as a morally upright philosopher who would never knowingly conduct fallacious arguments. I argue that Socrates cheats at elenchos, and he does so in order to win over his interlocutors. I conclude that because of certain assumptions Vlastos makes about the character of the model philosopher and the model method, he exaggerates the strength of elenchos. If I am right, the Gorgias is witness to, not the power of elenchos as Vlastos would have us believe, but its limitations.

<p>This thesis offers a consideration of Ovid’s portrayal of Medea - in <em>Heroides</em> 6 and 12, <em>Metamorphoses</em> 7, and in <em>Tristia</em> 3.9. Although several scholars have examined the myth as Ovid presents it, no one has yet offered a literary appreciation of Ovid’s various accounts of the myth – one that examines his use of characterization, humour, audience response, and one that treats his Medea as a consistent, albeit complex, character.</p> <p>The first chapter focuses on the sources for Ovid’s Medea, the ways he makes changes and, as far as we can tell, innovations to his predecessors. The second begins with a general introduction to the <em>Heroides</em>, followed by a close reading of <em>Heroides</em> 6, showing how this letter is an oblique reference to Medea’s letter and myth, and I point out the links between the two poems, arguing that Hypsipyle’s letter must be read as a foreshadowing of Medea’s. The third chapter examines <em>Heroides </em>12 – Medea’s letter - where I concentrate on Ovid’s characterization of Medea and specifically look at elements of black humour and foreshadowing. The fourth – and longest – chapter deals with the Medea of the <em>Metamorphoses</em>, where I propose that the real metamorphosis of this story is Medea herself, who moves from the state of an innocent young girl to that of a witch, yet noting that all of the changes take place within a work that is marked by its sense of playfulness – its <em>perpetua festivitas</em> – and note Ovid’s use of wit and irony even as his characterization appears to grow dark. The fifth and final chapter deals with the Medea in Ovid’s <em>Tristia</em>, where I place the Medea of this work within the context of Ovid’s exile poetry, while showing that he is working with a complex character and is in no way contradicting himself.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

<p>The role of realism in the depiction of animals in Greaco-Roman fable is investigated. The crow and the raven have been chosen as the prism through which the investigation is carried out. Fable will be shown to be a genre founded on a contextually realistic depiction of animals, and this may especially be seen in the corvid fables. Realism must, however, be understood contextually, as what constitutes a realistic depiction of crows and ravens in Graeco-Roman times is quite different than what one would encounter at present. As a result of which the crow and raven are marked by attributes ranging from cleverness, parenting ability, resistance to weather, vocal mimicry, longevity, and augural significance, amongst a host of other characteristics which sometimes coincide with modern views but often do not. Thus Graeco-Roman fables dealing with crows and ravens can be broadly divided into two categories: fables dealing in various ways with their intelligence, and fables dealing with their augural significance.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

No description available.

Não apresentado / Não apresentado

Não apresentado / Não apresentado