No description available.

In the introduction, I discuss the problems scholars experience in trying to define the concept of Roman friendship. I argue that amicitia cannot be equated with patronage, and present justification based on some primary literature. Brief words are then offered on the sociology of friendship, and an attempt is made to relate ideas from modern sociology to ancient friendship. The first chapter is based on the Letters of Pliny the Younger, and begins with an analysis of the vocabulary employed by Pliny in describing his friendships. This is considered in conjunction with prosopographical data in order to establish the connection between vocabulary and practice. The derived results are used to conclude that friendship in the Roman world was more involved than simply patronage, and that it was one of the driving forces behind Roman social behaviour as it helps to integrate different levels of society. Chapter two follows a similar methodology, with the correspondence of Fronto as its focus. The conclusions drawn in this chapter are used to reinforce the arguments presented in the first. Also included in chapter two is a brief discussion of the ancient philosophical approaches to friendship, and a solution is presented to resolve the differences between philosophical ideals and the reality of friendship. The third chapter begins with an examination of the secondary literature on the concept of friendship with the emperor. I maintain that scholarship is lacking in this field because it neglects the personal nuances such relationships could have. The chapter then turns to Pliny’s Panegyricus to determine his attitude regarding this issue, which is used as evidence against some modern interpretations of aristocratic perceptions of the emperor. Pliny’s exchanges with Trajan are subsequently analyzed, and it is argued that it was as subject/ruler that Pliny and Trajan defined their association. Chapter four discusses the relationship Fronto shared with the Antonine emperors. I contend that Fronto related differently with each and experienced different levels of intimacy, which points to the importance of personal connections, even with people as uniquely powerful as emperors. I also conclude from this that even emperors were not above the rules and practices of friendship. The concluding remarks draw attention to the advantages of exploring Roman social relationships through the prism of friendship, as opposed to the traditional perspective of patronage. Some future avenues of research are also suggested.

Bohemian art of the second half of the fourteenth century is closely associated with the personality of Charles IV, Emperor of the Romans and King of Bohemia (1316--1378). In an effort to legitimize his reign as ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and to raise the profile of his ancestral Bohemian lands, he leaned on the power of history to reveal his heritage as stemming, on one side, from an illustrious line of emperors including Charlemagne, and on the other, from the dynasty of Bohemian sovereigns. He recognized that art could display this legitimization and so implemented a programme of historicism in his artistic commissions. His impact on Bohemian art was indirect as well: his ideas influenced the art patronage of his closest court advisers, as seen in this paper through the examples of two illuminated manuscripts, the Evangeliary of John of Opava and the Liber viaticus.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Although many historians consider Joseph II's campaign of 1788 against the Ottoman Turks a failure, no one has yet provided a thorough account of it. This study attempts to put something into the void. / Based mostly on original sources found in the Kriegsarchiv (War Archives) in Vienna, it examines the campaign from the perspective of Joseph II. The first chapter tries to explain how Joseph became involved in a conflict with the Porte. The second chapter covers the period of February-July 1788, when Joseph postponed his offensive on Belgrade until the fall and waited in Zemun on the defensive. The third chapter begins with the Ottoman advance into the Banat of Timisoara in early August 1788 and ends with the Habsburg army's retreat to winter quarters in November. / Despite failing to take Belgrade, the Habsburg army captured strategically important positions for the campaign of 1789. The difficulties encountered cannot be blamed solely on Joseph's poor generalship. Other factors, such as insufficient Russian assistance, a difficult climate and terrain and a surprisingly strong Ottoman effort, must also be considered.

Charles I, King of Spain, or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, was the most powerful ruler in Europe since Charlemagne. With a Germanic background, and speaking French, Charles became King of Spain in 1516. Yet secondary sources and available sixteenth century Spanish sources such as Spanish Royal Council records, local records of Castro Urdiales in Castile, and Charles's correspondence show that he continued the policies of his predecessors in Spain, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. He strove to strengthen his power and unify Spain and his empire using Castilian strength, a Castilian model of government, Roman law, religion, his strong personality, and a loyal and talented bureaucracy. Charles desired to be another Charlemagne, but with his base of power in Spain.

No description available.