dc.contributor.advisor |
Armstrong, J |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Baker, James |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2012-03-07T03:42:50Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2012 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/13216 |
en |
dc.description |
Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only. |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Chapter 1 has introduced this topic and its dual purposes which remain constant throughout this thesis. Chapter 2 begins with a brief description of Mommsen (1856) and his work as well as an analysis of his characterisation after considering his personal context. Chapter 3 details how Mommsen‟s ideas and his characterisation of Caesar continued to be influential through the 19th and early 20th century with such authors as Fowler (1891), Dodge (1892), Gelzer (1921), Cary (1935), Marsh (1935), Syme (1939), Smith (1955), Scullard (1958) and even Cary & Scullard (1975). Their pro-Caesar, imperial, Anglophonic characterisation fits the context of their times. Chapter 4 details the „fallout from World War II‟ (1939-45) with a few, lonely, anti- Caesar voices, particularly Ferrero (1934) and Fuller (1965) who were the only definite anti-Caesar voices up until the late 20th century. Cary‟s (1935) critical comments in his conclusion also show the otherwise pro-Caesarian characterisation starting to change. However the conservative nature of academic scholarship means any anti-Caesarian voices would have to wait until the 1980‟s when authors as Yavetz (1979) and Meier (1982) would provide detailed, scholarly doubt regarding Caesar‟s „great man‟ status in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 details the „rise of the anti-Caesar perspective‟ in the late 20th century and early 21st century which challenged the pro-Mommsen ideal of „the entire and perfect‟ Caesar. This was through authors such as Grabsky (1997), Boatwright, Gargola & Talbert (2004), Wyke (2007) and Mackay (2009). The „modern neutral‟ is discussed in this chapter too. However this provoked a pro-Caesar „fight-back‟ in the 21st century which reasserts the pro-Caesarian position with authors like Bedoyere (2006), Goldsworthy (2006), Kamm (2006), Canfora (2007) but most prominently Billows (2009) as outlined in Chapter 8. Chapter 8 begins the analysis portion of this thesis by looking at what influence time period, type of publication, nationality and other factors have on the Caesarian characterisation. A consideration of the possible future directions as well as a likely future path for Caesarian research fills chapter 9. Chapter 10 summarises this thesis with some conclusions. Finally Chapter 11 contains a bibliography. |
en |
dc.publisher |
ResearchSpace@Auckland |
en |
dc.relation.ispartof |
Masters Thesis - University of Auckland |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/ |
en |
dc.title |
Multiple Faces of Gaius Julius Caesar: His Characterisation since Mommsen |
en |
dc.type |
Thesis |
en |
thesis.degree.grantor |
The University of Auckland |
en |
thesis.degree.level |
Masters |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: The author |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
314187 |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2012-03-07 |
en |
dc.identifier.wikidata |
Q112888806 |
|