"Endymion" è il traît d'union tra i juvenilia di Keats ("Poems", 1817) e i suoi lavori più conosciuti ("Lamia, Isabella ... and other Poems"). Per sua natura, è un'opera di transizione e quindi concede allo studioso un punto di vista privilegiato sullo sviluppo della poetica e della lingua di Keats. Inoltre, l'"Endymion" è l'opera keatsiana più aspramente contestata dalla critica romantica. Gli studiosi moderni hanno analizzato il problema alla luce di considerazioni socio-politiche, il mio lavoro mira invece ad un'analisi più strettamente linguistica. Ricostruisco il contesto linguistico del diciottesimo e diciannovesimo secolo al fine di spiegare il disagio dei recensori nei confronti di "Endymion". Sostengo che il prescrittivismo del Settecento nasce da una profonda ansia relativa alla lingua, causata dalle teorie di Locke. L'atteggiamento prescrittivista influenza la critica romantica e i critici di Keats in particolare, più di quanto potessero fare considerazioni di natura politica. Analizzo le peculiarità linguistiche e strutturali di "Endymion" al fine di provare che Keats elabora una 'poetica dell'incontrollabilità', una serie di strategie stilistiche e testuali, che violano le convenzioni linguistiche e narrative e che vengono quindi percepite come destabilizzanti e stranianti. / "Endymion" is the traît d’union between Keats’s juvenilia ("Poems", 1817)and his better known, and, conventionally, ’mature’ works ("Lamia, Is- abella ... and other Poems", 1820). By its nature, it is a transitional work, and thus gives the scholar special insight into the development of Keats’s poetics and idiom. Moreover, "Endymion" is the Keatsian work which most irritated and provoked contemporary critics; the two pieces of venomous invective it received in the periodical press of the time have become the stuff of scholarly legend. Recent scholarly work has analysed the language of "Endymion" in socio-political terms; my work focuses on more strictly linguistic concerns. I reconstruct the linguistic context of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in order to explain the reviewers’ unease with regard to "Endymion". I maintain that eighteenth-century prescriptivism arose from a deep-seated anxiety regarding language, Lockian in origin, and that the ensuing desire to stabilize and therefore control language informed Romantic criticism in general, and the criticism of Keats’s work in particular, more fundamentally than politics could or did. I analyse the imaginative and linguistic markers of "Endymion" in order to prove that Keats had elaborated a “poetics of uncontrollability”, a series of textual and stylistic strategies, which violated linguistic and narrative standards and were therefore perceived as unsettling.

Στόχος της παρούσας εργασίας είναι η εξέταση του δικτύου των σχέσεων, οι οποίες αναπτύσσονται εντός των σοφιστικών και φιλοσοφικών κύκλων που παρουσιάζονται σε δύο βιογραφικά corpora, στους Βίους Σοφιστῶν του Φιλοστράτου και στους Βίους Φιλοσόφων καὶ Σοφιστῶν του Ευναπίου, καθώς και του κεντρικού ρόλου που διαδραμάτισαν οι σχέσεις αυτές (κυρίως η σχέση δασκάλου και μαθητή) στη συγκρότηση των δύο συλλογών. Η μελέτη του δικτύου αυτών των σχέσεων στοχεύει στην ανάδειξη της μοναδικότητας των δύο συλλογών από άποψη δομής, η οποία καταδεικνύεται, επί παραδείγματι, από την ένταξη ορισμένων σοφιστών ή φιλοσόφων και τον αποκλεισμό άλλων. Ταυτόχρονα, διερευνάται πώς αυτές οι σχέσεις λειτουργούν ως μια βασική οργανωτική αρχή των Βίων και μας επιτρέπουν να διαμορφώσουμε μια σαφέστερη εικόνα για τη σοφιστική/φιλοσοφική ταυτότητα κατά την ελληνορωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορική περίοδο. Το πλέγμα σχέσεων που διαμορφώνεται ανάμεσα στους σοφιστές και τους φιλοσόφους, καθώς και ο τρόπος ταξινόμησής τους στα δύο βιογραφικά corpora μας επιτρέπουν να αναγνώσουμε τις συλλογές ως ρυθμιστικά, κανονιστικά κείμενα, τα οποία υπαγορεύουν και εξασφαλίζουν την επιβίωσή των βιογραφουμένων προσώπων για τις επόμενες γενιές. / The aim of this thesis is to examine the network of relationships developed among the sophists and the philosophers in two biographical corpora, Philostratus’ Lives of Sophists and Eunapius’ Lives of Philosophers and Sophists, as well as the pivotal role these relationships (especially those of master and student) played in the formation of the two collections. The study of the nexus of these relationships aims to demonstrate the structural singularity of these corpora, which is pointed, for instance, by the inclusion of certain sophists/philosophers and the exclusion of others; at the same time, these relationships are shown to constitute a major organizational principle of the Lives, allowing thus a sharper understanding of the sophistic/philosophical identity in the Graeco-Roman Imperial period. The two corpora are read as regulatory, canonistic texts, in the sense that they dictate and determine, to a great extent, the type of the biographised sophists and philosophers worth preserving for future generations.

This dissertation is the application of counterfactual criticism to Shakespearean tragedy—supposing we are to ask, for example, “what if” Hamlet had done the deed, or, “what if” we could somehow disinherit our knowledge of Lear’s madness before reading King Lear. Such readings, mirroring critical practices in history, will loosely be called “counterfactual” readings. The key question to ask is not why tragedies are no longer being written (by writers), but why tragedies are no longer being felt (by readers). Tragedy entails a certain urgency in wanting to imagine an outcome different from the one we are given. Since we cannot change events as they stand, we feel a critical helplessness in dealing with feelings of tragic loss; the critical imperative that follows usually accounts for how the tragedy unfolded. Fleshing out a cause is one way to deal with the trauma of tragedy. But such explanation, in a sense, merely explains tragedy away. The fact that everything turns out so poorly in tragedy suggests that the tragic protagonist was somehow doomed, that he (in the case of Shakespearean tragedy) was the victim of some “tragic flaw,” as though tragedy and necessity go hand in hand. Only by allowing ourselves to imagine other possibilities can we regain the tragic effect, which is to remind ourselves that other outcomes are indeed possible. Tragedy, then, is more readily understood, or felt, as the playing out of contingency. It takes some effort to convince others, even ourselves, that the tragic effect resonates best when accompanied by an understanding that the characters on the page are free individuals. No amount of foreknowledge, on our part or theirs, can save us (or them) from tragedy’s horror.

This dissertation is the application of counterfactual criticism to Shakespearean tragedy—supposing we are to ask, for example, “what if” Hamlet had done the deed, or, “what if” we could somehow disinherit our knowledge of Lear’s madness before reading King Lear. Such readings, mirroring critical practices in history, will loosely be called “counterfactual” readings. The key question to ask is not why tragedies are no longer being written (by writers), but why tragedies are no longer being felt (by readers). Tragedy entails a certain urgency in wanting to imagine an outcome different from the one we are given. Since we cannot change events as they stand, we feel a critical helplessness in dealing with feelings of tragic loss; the critical imperative that follows usually accounts for how the tragedy unfolded. Fleshing out a cause is one way to deal with the trauma of tragedy. But such explanation, in a sense, merely explains tragedy away. The fact that everything turns out so poorly in tragedy suggests that the tragic protagonist was somehow doomed, that he (in the case of Shakespearean tragedy) was the victim of some “tragic flaw,” as though tragedy and necessity go hand in hand. Only by allowing ourselves to imagine other possibilities can we regain the tragic effect, which is to remind ourselves that other outcomes are indeed possible. Tragedy, then, is more readily understood, or felt, as the playing out of contingency. It takes some effort to convince others, even ourselves, that the tragic effect resonates best when accompanied by an understanding that the characters on the page are free individuals. No amount of foreknowledge, on our part or theirs, can save us (or them) from tragedy’s horror.

This thesis studies the clash between the hero and the First World War in the works of Rupert Brooke, Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. It explores the impact on their poetry and attitude towards the concept of the hero as it applied to them as people and poets. The study shows that over prolonged contact with the horrors of the First World War, it is evident in both literary sources and their poetry that both Sassoon and Owen changed their attitudes negatively towards both the idea of heroes and heroism, as well as the War as a just and glorious cause.  However, the myth of the hero was still a core belief of their society, and in order to not be branded cowards and discarded along with their warnings, they had to become heroes in the eyes of their society, to openly attack the concept and the war it fueled. This thesis then studies how and why First World War poetry and literature should be utilized within the subject of English in the Swedish School System, as a means to provide a multicultural and critical education.