Galen of Pergamum is principally famous for his works on anatomy, medicine and moral philosophy. He is also noted for his acerbic temperament, his affirmations of his own brilliance and his denigration of the education, morals and lifestyle of his medical opponents and of anyone who viewed differently the things that he held dear. On his arrival in Rome he used a variety of techniques reminiscent of those used by the sophists in order to establish his place amongst the social and intellectual elite both as a physician and as a philosopher. At this and later points in his career his rhetoric emphasised the quality of his Greek education which included a thorough grounding in mathematics. He also appealed to his philosophic lifestyle and to his social connections in Rome in order to differentiate himself from the general run of doctors and to promote his own agenda. In this dissertation I examine his writings with the object of testing the validity of Galen’s claims in these areas and, in the process, to come to a deeper understanding the social and intellectual environments that formed him and with which he interacted. Special attention is given to his literary and rhetorical education and his knowledge of the exact sciences. One consequence of studying his training in rhetoric was the reconstruction of a rhetorical template which, though of a kind possibly mentioned in passing by Quintilian, is not to be found in any of the extant manuals on rhetoric. In the matter of the exact sciences particular consideration is given to his knowledge of geometry and the construction of sundials, as his views on these subjects form the foundation to his approach to philosophical and medical knowledge. Thus a substantial section is devoted to the manner in which Galen could have gained his certainty in these matters. ¶ Galen's rhetoric also makes much of his family's social status and his personal relationship to the royal court. These matters are examined in relationship to our present knowledge of Greek society and the familia Caesaris at the time. A consequence of this latter enquiry was some insights into the work habits of Marcus Aurelius. ¶ Galen not only wished to be known as Rome's leading physician and anatomist but also as one who practised the philosophic lifestyle. The background to Galen's decision in this last matter is assessed together with an examination of passages that while suggesting that much of his language and sentiment was a reflection of Platonic values also show that his commitment to a life of asceticism was real. ¶ What also emerges in this study is that there was considerable tension between the world in which he wished to live and the world as it was. This shows especially in his aggressive rejection of the salutatio and other Roman social conventions, his frustration at the early reception of his medical theories and teaching, and his desire to sustain the educated koine Greek of his homeland against the social pressures which were attempting to restrict educated Greek to the dialect and vocabulary of ancient Attica.

This thesis provides individual studies in and a comparison of the Atticistic lexica of the second and third centuries AD. Modern European classicists have looked at the lexicogra-phers separately, but never as a group or in direct comparison. German philologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries looked at them in depth, but did not draw conclusions for their social context, other than the supposed rivalry between Phrynichus and Pollux, while modern classicists of the late 20th century referred to them mainly as source to strengthen their theories for the broader social context of the Second Sophistic. Most extant Atticistic lexica stem from the second and third centuries AD, and it seems natural to concentrate on this period of time in this context. The first chapter of this thesis summarises the linguistic developments leading up to this period of time to provide a bet-ter understanding of Atticism. Atticism cannot be understood fully without special consid-eration of the Atticistic lexicographical movement and vice versa. Chapter II discusses Ae-lius Dionysius and Pausanias, the so-called “forefathers of Atticistic lexicography”, and establishes their neutral approach to the promotion of Atticism. Philemon and the Antiatti-cist are briefly introduced in Chapters III and IV, [but not discussed in length due to exist-ing literature and fragmentary character of the former and the unusual approach of the sub-ject matter and the weak manuscript tradition of the latter.] Chapters V, VI and VII form the core of this analysis with the discussion of Phrynichus’ feisty promotion of Atticism, Moeris’ close links to Phrynichus and his unusual tripartite criteria (Ἀττικόν, Ἑλλήνικον, κοινόν), and Pollux’ Onomasticon which provides us with a unique insight to the lexicog-rapher’s methods, intentions and readership. Chapter VIII reveals that there was harsh crit-icism of those who “over-Atticised,” and discusses who of these lexicographers might have fallen under this criticism. Just as there was no standardised approach to the imitation of Attic Greek, there was no standardised lexicographical approach to providing guidance.

Scholars of migration, colonization, and cultural interaction in antiquity have increasingly turned towards a variety of concepts (such as hybridity, negotiations, and middle grounds) developed by postcolonial theorists to describe the dynamics of ancient civilizations beyond the major centers of Athens and Rome. Whereas older models of identity saw the ancient world as a series of geographically distinct cultural units with attendant language, religion, and practices--that is to say, a model of identity rooted in the modern concept of the nation state-- recently classicists have come to see ancient identities as abstractions of a series of individual choices that take place over long periods of time and that are always mediated by contact with different groups. Focusing on two authors from what I shall define as the `colonial worlds' of antiquity (Theocritus from Sicily and Lucian from Syria) this study will explore how representations of physical difference and cultural practice negotiate the presence of non-Greek peoples into Greek literary culture.

O trabalho investiga a constituição da figura do filósofo e sua oposição aos outros produtores de discurso existentes na pólis clássica ateniense, como o retor, o sofista e o poeta. O propósito principal é salientar as diferenças substanciais entre a real ciência dialética e suas artes opostas. O termo filósofo foi empregado por Platão no século IV a.C. no estrito senso de um saber privilegiado, que apreende as Formas inteligíveis, incorpóreas e invisíveis. A atividade escrita de Platão ressalta a coexistência entre os discursos figurativo e racional, pela qual ele concebe a natureza mítica e filosófica do ser e do não-ser, da opinião, descrita como um intermediário entre o ser imiscido e o não-ser absoluto. A dialética é determinada como a arte originada da elevada Musa, sendo um saber psicagógico, não meramente um método, mas a elevada ciência que articula a unidade e a multiplicidade fenomênica, e o filósofo o amante das Musas, analisando a natureza da arte idolopéica e suas conseqüências políticas e epistemológicas. A dialética é ciência própria da alma dianoética e mnemônica. Se o sofista e o retor elaboram uma imitação doxástica, fundamentada na arte antilógica, se o poeta realiza uma imitação de aparências, o filósofo produz uma imitação sábia, baseada na ciência da verdade, do conhecimento e ser. O sentido e explicitações desta tese tenta redefinir e repensar o significado do termo dialética nos Diálogos em que esse termo aparece. A tese evita usar categorias modernas de pensamento para entender os Diálogos. A pesquisa se concentra precisamente em Mênon, Fédon, República V, VI, VII, Fedro, Sofista e Filebo / This work investigates the constitution of philosophers portrait and its opposition from others discourses produtors genders living in athenian classic polis, such as the rethor, the sophist and the poet. The main purpose is to underline the substancial differences between the real science of dialectic and its opposites. The term philosophy was employed by Plato on IV century b.C. in a strict sense of an accurate knowledge, which aprehend the inteligible, incorporeal and invisible Forms. Platos written activity points out the coexistence between figurative and rational discourses, in which he conceives the mythical and philosophical nature of being and no-being, of opinion, described as an intermediate of unmixed being and absolute no-being, and science. Dialectic is determinated as the art originated from the supreme Muses, being a psicagogic wisdom, not merely a method, but the highest science, which articulates unity and phaenomenic plurality, and the philosopher as Museslover, analysing the nature of idolopeic art and its political and epistemological consequences. Dialectic is the proper science of a dianoetic and mnemonic soul. If the sophist and the rethor begget a doxastic imitation, based on antilogic art, if poet realizes an imitation of appearances, the philosopher produces a wisdom imitation, based on the science of truth, knowledge and being. The meaning and explicitation of this thesis try to redefine and rethink the significance of dialectic on the Dialogues, in which this term appears. This research avoids to use modern categories of thought to understand the Dialogues. This study focuses precisely on Meno, Phaedo, Republic V, VI, VII, Phaedrus, Sophist and Philebus

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1921. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 7).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1921. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 7).

O trabalho investiga a constituição da figura do filósofo e sua oposição aos outros produtores de discurso existentes na pólis clássica ateniense, como o retor, o sofista e o poeta. O propósito principal é salientar as diferenças substanciais entre a real ciência dialética e suas artes opostas. O termo filósofo foi empregado por Platão no século IV a.C. no estrito senso de um saber privilegiado, que apreende as Formas inteligíveis, incorpóreas e invisíveis. A atividade escrita de Platão ressalta a coexistência entre os discursos figurativo e racional, pela qual ele concebe a natureza mítica e filosófica do ser e do não-ser, da opinião, descrita como um intermediário entre o ser imiscido e o não-ser absoluto. A dialética é determinada como a arte originada da elevada Musa, sendo um saber psicagógico, não meramente um método, mas a elevada ciência que articula a unidade e a multiplicidade fenomênica, e o filósofo o amante das Musas, analisando a natureza da arte idolopéica e suas conseqüências políticas e epistemológicas. A dialética é ciência própria da alma dianoética e mnemônica. Se o sofista e o retor elaboram uma imitação doxástica, fundamentada na arte antilógica, se o poeta realiza uma imitação de aparências, o filósofo produz uma imitação sábia, baseada na ciência da verdade, do conhecimento e ser. O sentido e explicitações desta tese tenta redefinir e repensar o significado do termo dialética nos Diálogos em que esse termo aparece. A tese evita usar categorias modernas de pensamento para entender os Diálogos. A pesquisa se concentra precisamente em Mênon, Fédon, República V, VI, VII, Fedro, Sofista e Filebo / This work investigates the constitution of philosophers portrait and its opposition from others discourses produtors genders living in athenian classic polis, such as the rethor, the sophist and the poet. The main purpose is to underline the substancial differences between the real science of dialectic and its opposites. The term philosophy was employed by Plato on IV century b.C. in a strict sense of an accurate knowledge, which aprehend the inteligible, incorporeal and invisible Forms. Platos written activity points out the coexistence between figurative and rational discourses, in which he conceives the mythical and philosophical nature of being and no-being, of opinion, described as an intermediate of unmixed being and absolute no-being, and science. Dialectic is determinated as the art originated from the supreme Muses, being a psicagogic wisdom, not merely a method, but the highest science, which articulates unity and phaenomenic plurality, and the philosopher as Museslover, analysing the nature of idolopeic art and its political and epistemological consequences. Dialectic is the proper science of a dianoetic and mnemonic soul. If the sophist and the rethor begget a doxastic imitation, based on antilogic art, if poet realizes an imitation of appearances, the philosopher produces a wisdom imitation, based on the science of truth, knowledge and being. The meaning and explicitation of this thesis try to redefine and rethink the significance of dialectic on the Dialogues, in which this term appears. This research avoids to use modern categories of thought to understand the Dialogues. This study focuses precisely on Meno, Phaedo, Republic V, VI, VII, Phaedrus, Sophist and Philebus

While scholars have noticed important allusions to Hesiod in Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica, there is still a need to explain Hesiod’s relevance in a poem that is so overtly Homeric. I argue that an understanding of Hesiod’s reception, especially during the Second Sophistic period, will lead to a deeper appreciation of the Posthomerica and the world that produced it. Hesiodic allusions appear at key moments in the narrative and invite us to see Quintus of Smyrna as reading Homeric epic and ethics through a Hesiodic lens. Rather than read the Posthomerica solely as a work of Homeric emulation, I propose that Quintus of Smyrna relies on Hesiod’s reputation as Homer’s rival to articulate his critique of Homeric poetics and heroism. Chapter One argues that Quintus of Smyrna reorients his reader’s gaze from Homer to Hesiod right when he seems to ape a Homeric practice, namely the ekphrasis of Achilles’ shield. Chapter Two asserts that Quintus of Smyrna’s use of Hesiod contributes to the Posthomerica’s narrative structure and highlights his revision of the Homeric idea of virtue (arete), such that Iliadic force must be joined with Hesiodic wisdom. Chapter Three examines Quintus of Smyrna’s Hesiodic self-portrayal and argues that the Posthomerica may be read as a telling of the Trojan saga through a Hesiodic lens. Chapter Four discusses Quintus of Smyrna in the context of Hesiodic reception. And Chapter Five places Quintus of Smyrna’s reception of Homer and Hesiod within the broader landscape of Second Sophistic and Late Antique literature, comparing his allusive practices to those of Greek hexameter poets of his era. This study concludes that Quintus of Smyrna’s revision of Homer reflects a trend among some Second Sophistic authors who re-write and critique Homeric narratives. Moreover, his direct and pervasive engagement with the works of Hesiod is unique when compared to his fellow Greek hexameter poets, whose allusions to Hesiod are mediated through a Hellenistic filter. By bridging studies of the Posthomerica and studies in Hesiod’s reception, my work enables us to gain a better understanding of Quintus of Smyrna’s dynamic engagement with his archaic literary tradition.

This thesis explores the anxieties and opportunities that attend fame and posterity in the second sophistic and how they play out in both literary and monumental expressions of cultural production. I consider how elite provincials in the Roman empire, who are competitive, bi- or even tri-cultural, status-driven, often politically active, and engaged in cultural production, attempt to construct a future presence for themselves either through the composition of literature that is aimed (at least in part) at the future or through efforts to write themselves into the landscape of their native or adopted cities. I argue that the cultural and temporal perspective of these men drives their multifarious, playful, and self-reflexive approach to the production of literature or monuments. For those men engaged in the ‘second sophistic’, in the narrower, Philostratean definition, there is an ever present tether on their creative efforts, in that for contemporary success they must immerse themselves in the culture of classical Athens; and the prominent practice of epideictic oratory, with its promotion of improvisation and lack of repetition, discourages the kind of literary effort that aims at eternity. At the same time, their attempts to build themselves into the hearts of cities is less restricted, in that those who possess or have access to sufficient wealth can grant elaborate benefactions which essentially stand as monuments to their financer. Nevertheless, their belated position with respect to the Greek literary canon and the heights of political and cultural prestige invested in classical Greece infuses the cultural efforts of the second sophistic with a sense of pathos that acknowledges the impossibility of creating and controlling one’s future reputation regardless of how much effort is applied. At the same time, this impossible position, rather than limiting them, endows these men with a varied, self-ironizing, intertextual, intermedial, and unique approach to cultural production that actively engages with the inescapable and laudable past in order to carve a lasting impression on the literary and physical landscape of the Roman empire.

Héritier des présocratiques et des conceptions homériques sur la valeur du discours, Protagoras place l'homme au centre d'un monde en devenir constant, dans lequel la connaissance du kairos guide la production discursive comme l'action.La reconstruction de la pensée de Protagoras d'Abdère requiert d'abord de le situer dans son contexte historique pour dégager les tensions qui existent parmi les intellectuels de l'époque au sujet des trois éléments qui permettent cette reconstruction : le discours (logos), l'action (pragma, chrèma, praxis), le temps (chronos, kairos).Les aspects gnoséologiques et ontologiques sont soulignés dans la doctrine de l'homo mensura. La position de Protagoras relativement à la valeur du logos insiste sur l'importance des éléments relatifs à chaque situation pour la détermination de ce qui est prédiqué au moment de sa prédication. L'aspect éthique est, à son tour, déterminé par cette réalité humaine. Si une axiologie est possible elle doit nécessairement dériver de l'expérience (askesis) de l'homme et être adéquate aux besoins et aux objectifs de la société dans laquelle il se trouve.Deux facteurs déterminent principalement l'homme : la réalité sociale en perpétuel devenir et l'expérience particulière des individus soumise elle aussi au devenir en sorte que selon Protagoras l'homme se construit constamment dans une double dimension temporelle, diachronique et synchronique.L'influence des positions du sophiste sur les philosophes (Platon et Aristote) comme sur les orateurs (Isocrate) postérieurs à Protagoras confirme la reconstruction de la pensée de l'Abdéritain. / The legacy of the presocratic and homeric thinking is present in Protagoras' conception of language. He places man in the center of a world constantly changing, in which knowledge of kairos is a guide for discursive production, as well as for action. The reconstruction of the thinking or Protagoras of Abdera requires to place it in its historical context to understund the tensions among the intellectuals of his time. This reconstruction will be done in three axis: speech (logos), action (pragma, praxis), time (chronos, kairos). The epistemological and ontological aspects are emphasized in the doctrine of man-mesure. Protagoras' position on the value of logos stresses the importance of situational factors to determine what is properly predicated. Man is also determined by two other variables: the social reality in constant evolution and the specific experience of individual subjects. Protagoras thinks that man builts this reality in a double temporal dimension: diachronic and synchronic. We can confirm our conclusions in the thought of later philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) and orators (Isocrates).