147

Between 1933 and 1935 about 1700 German academics, roughly 20% of the German professoriate at that time, lost their jobs as a result of the Nazi program that eliminated non-Aryan and politically unreliable individuals from universities and other branches of the civil service. Among these professors were numerous classicists who eventually found refuge in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. Interest in this remarkable immigration and its impact on American classical scholarship has steadily grown since the pioneering studies of William M.

This paper argues that Plutarch’s depiction of Caesar’s conduct during the Gallic War (Caesar 15-27) explicitly reflects the rhetorical purposes left implicit within Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War. He renders unto Caesar precisely what Caesar sought to be rendered, claiming that the Gallic War marked Caesar’s new start in public life, one that would make him the greatest of all Rome’s generals (Caes. 15).

In this paper I propose a new explanation of Plutarch’s view of Sulla’s (lack of) strategy in the sack of Athens. Plutarch describes Sulla’s attack on Athens as “fighting against shadows” (σκιαμαχοῦντα, Sull. 13), but scholars have considered this depiction a grave and surprising error (e.g., Santangelo 2007), given the strategic importance of the city for Sulla. I suggest that Plutarch’s analysis is based on his anachronistic presentation of Athens in the life: the city is depicted as the site of Greek culture and philosophy, rather than a strategic battleground.

Plutarch describes Sulla entering a city, an act loaded with religious and legal significance, three times in the Life: twice at Rome and once at Athens. In each case, the violation of the city corresponds with a violation of the religious landscape. This portrayal of religious violation contributes to the ambiguity in Sulla’s characterization. The work of Stadter (1992) and Duff (1999) has highlighted the ambiguity that is prevalent in the Sulla and its counterpart, the Lysander, but neither comment on the religious aspect.

Plutarch's Politika parangelmata (Praecepta rei publicae gerendae) is a work whose opening is diffident about its own value. Plutarch characterizes the work as a second-best way to fulfil the philosopher's duty to instruct, since the work's addressee, Menemakhos, lacks the time to learn through observation of actual politics (798A-C). This diffidence clusters especially around paradeigmata.

This paper will assess Julian in the context of fourth-century literature and history by addressing perceptions of Julian among his contemporaries, specifically in the West. It will reveal the particular (and generally overlooked) view of Julian that was available in the West before Ammianus Marcellinus wrote his dominating narrative of Julian’s reign in Rome in the late 380s.

Julian's Misopogon has proved difficult to categorize with certainty. While Hunger tentatively classified the work as invective (Hunger 1978), others have suggested that it is an inverted panegyric or an attempt to subvert fourth-century rhetorical practice (Marcone 1981; Quiroga 2009). As Elm has recently shown, it is a work that combines many of these elements, written as if it were an invective in se ipsum (Elm 2012: 327-335).

In his Oration Against the Uneducated Cynics (Oration 6), Julian attacked “false” Cynics who adopted the external features of Cynic philosophers (clothing, hairstyle, wallet, and staff) while eschewing more “ascetic” behaviors like taking cold baths and eating raw meat. My paper situates Julian’s rhetoric against “false” Cynics (Orations 6 and 7) within a wider fourth-century concern of both Christians and non-Christians to identify and delegitimize rival intellectual ascetics as impostors.

This paper argues that Julian’s succession to the purple in November 361 was a more contentious proposition than is usually assumed and should not be seen as a simple dynastic transition.