Добірка наукової літератури з теми "STILICONE"

Nel Tesoro del Duomo di Monza si conservano tre celebri dittici eburnei relativi alla dotazione di suppellettili liturgiche di Berengario del Friuli (inizi X secolo): il dittico di Stilicone e quello del Poeta e della Musa, entrambi tardo antichi; il dittico di re Davide e san Gregorio Magno, di datazione e lettura più controverse (VI secolo ed età carolingia). Primo editore dei pezzi è Anton Francesco Gori nel secondo volume del Thesaurus veterum diptychorum consularium et ecclesiasticorum (1759), corredato di tre tavole di Andrea Scacciati. Pur non avendo mai visionato i manufatti, l’erudito fiorentino dedica ad essi un’ampia disamina critica basandosi essenzialmente sugli acquerelli del pittore Girolamo Ferroni, reclutato dal marchese milanese e prezioso intermediario Alessandro Teodoro Trivulzio. Nel 1794 il padre della storiografia monzese, il canonico Anton Francesco Frisi, risolve di rieditare i dittici in apertura del terzo tomo delle sue Memorie storiche di Monza e sua corte. Consigliato da quel don Carlo Trivulzio erudito e proprietario di un ricco nucleo di avori antichi, supportato dalle modeste incisioni di Giulio Cesare Bianchi, offre una rilettura che puntualizza ed emenda in parte quanto scritto dal Gori, condita da una vena polemica contro «chi non ha esaminati personalmente i Monumenti, sui quali ragiona». Sullo sfondo del contesto culturale dell’epoca e delle personalità che vi presero parte, con l’ausilio della documentazione divisa tra la Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana di Milano, l’Archivio della Fondazione Trivulzio e la Biblioteca Marucelliana di Firenze, il contributo intende proporre una ricostruzione degli avvenimenti con attenzione al rapporto tra originale (i dittici monzesi) e copia (disegni e incisioni che ne scaturirono).

First-instar larvae of Eustilicus Sharp and Rugilus Leach (Stilicina), and of Medon Stephens (sensu Casey), Deroderus Sharp, and Stilocharis Sharp (Medonina) are described and compared with larvae of other Paederini in the subtribes Stilicina, Medonina, Lithocharina, Scopaeina, Stilicopsina, Astenina, Lathrobiina, Paederina, and Cryptobiina. Three synapomorphies in larvae indicate that the first six subtribes are closely related. One synapomorphy in larvae provides evidence that Eustilicus, Deroderus, Stilocharis, and Medon are closely related. In contrast, there is no evidence that Rugilus is closely related to Eustilicus. These last two results conform largely to those obtained previously for adults, except that close relationship of Medon to Eustilicus, Deroderus, and Stilocharis was not demonstrated using adult characters. Larvae provide additional evidence that the Medonina and Stilicina are not monophyletic groups.

Based on a study of adults, Trochoderus Sharp and Stilicolina Casey are placed as subjective synonyms of Eustilicus Sharp, Lypomedon Blackwelder is removed from Stilomedon Sharp and treated as a subjective synonym of Deroderus Sharp, Stilocharis Sharp is removed from Lithocharis Dejean and treated as a distinct genus, and Deroderus difftcilis Sharp is transferred to Rugilus Leach. Diagnoses are provided for Eustilicus, Deroderus, Stilocharis, Rugilus, and Stiliderus Mots. Although Eustilicus, Rugilus, and Stiliderus are typical members of the subtribe Stilicina, and Stilocharis and Deroderus are typical Medonina, adults of Eustilicus, Stilocharis, and Deroderus possess two synapomorphies to the exclusion of all other Paederinae. Evidently Eustilicus is more closely related to Deroderus and Stilocharis than to Rugilus or other genera in the Stilicina. Further studies may show that the Stilicina and Medonina should be combined.

Nach Revision von Typen und weiterem Material umfasst die Gattung Panscopaeus Sharp, 1889 derzeit sieben Arten: P. lithocharoides (Sharp, 1874), P. yakushimanus (Ito, 1992), P. formosanus sp. n. (Taiwan), P. ndrewesi (Cameron, 1931), comb. n. (ex Medon), P. breviusculus (Kraatz, 1859), comb. n. (ex Medon), P. stilicinus (Cameron, 1931), comb. n. (ex Medon) und P. cameroni (Scheerpeltz, 1933), comb. n. (ex Medon). Die Gattung und alle Arten werden beschrieben bzw. redeskribiert und abgebildet. Die bisher den Medonina zugeordnete Gattung wird in die Subtribus Stilicina gestellt. Ihre Verbreitung beschränkt sich auf die Orientalis und die südliche Ostpaläarktis. Zwei Namen werden synonymisiert: Panscopaeus Sharp, 1889 = Medostilicus Coiffait, 1982, syn. n.; Panscopaeus lithocharoides (Sharp, 1874) = Medostilicus deharvengi Coiffait, 1982, syn. n. Für Scopaeus lithocharoides Sharp, 1874, Medon andrewesi Cameron, 1931, Lithocharis breviuscula Kraatz, 1859 und Stilicus lithocharoides Cameron, 1924 werden Lectotypen designiert. Weitere Nachweise, darunter mehrere Erstnachweise, werden gemeldet. Eine Bestimmungstabelle der Panscopaeus-Arten wird erstellt.StichwörterColeoptera, Staphylinidae, Paederinae, Stilicina, Medonina, Panscopaeus, Palaearctic region, Oriental region, taxonomy, new species, new synonymies, new combinations, lectotype designations, key to species, additional records.Nomenklatorische Handlungendeharvengi Coiffait, 1982 (Medostilicus), syn.nov. of Panscopaeus lithocharoides (Sharp, 1874)andrewesi (Cameron, 1931) (Panscopaeus), LT; comb.nov. hitherto Medon andrewesi Cameron, 1931breviusculus (Kraatz, 1859) (Panscopaeus), LT; comb.nov. hitherto Lithocharis breviuscula Kraatz, 1859cameroni (Scheerpeltz, 1933) (Panscopaeus), comb.nov. hitherto Medon cameroni Scheerpeltz, 1933formosanus Assing, 2011 (Panscopaeus), sp. n.lithocharoides (Sharp, 1874) (Panscopaeus), LT described as Scopaeus lithocharoidesstilicinus (Cameron, 1931) (Panscopaeus), LT; comb.nov. hitherto Medon stilicinus Cameron, 1931

The myrmecophilous Paederinae rove beetle genus Megastilicus Casey, 1889 from North America is reviewed based on museum specimens. Prior to this study, the genus was monotypic with one species Megastilicus formicarius Casey, 1889 described. Here, we provide a redescription of the genus and the type species, designate a lectotype, and provide pictures of habitus and illustrations of the aedeagus and genital segments. Additionally, we describe a new species for the genus, Megastilicus iowaensis sp. nov., include an identification key to the two species and present the distribution map of both of them, including new state records. We discuss the assignment of the genus to the subtribe Stilicina based on morphological features.

The egg of Paederidus ruficollis (Fabricius, 1781) and larvae of that and P. rubrothoracicus carpathicola Scheerpeltz, 1957 are described and illustrated. This is the first thorough description of immature stages for the genus Paederidus Mulsant & Rey (1878). The immature stages were obtained by rearing adults. Morphological differences between instars of the same species and also between the studied species are found in the detailed structure of the antenna, nasale, maxillary palp, labial palp, tarsungulus and urogomphus; chaetotaxy of pronotum, profemur and protibia; proportions of same body parts; microstructure of urogomphus and body colour. Comparative characters of larvae of two subtribes Paederina and Stilicina are presented.

The most important factors responsible for development of an impressive ca­reer of Flavius Stilicho were: his family ties with Theodosians’ dynasty, the way he reorganized the Roman army, military victories, how he drummed up senate’s support for his political aims and the balanced policy of using and stopping the barbarian tribes. Protecting emperor Honorius, cooperating simultaneously with pagan and Christian fractions in the senate, achieving military success and de­fending borders of the Roman Empire against barbarians raids, Stilicho de facto was reigning the state in the name of his son-in-law, Honorius. Paradoxically, the same factors contributed to the downfall of the master-in-chief in 404-408 A.D. The conflict with his wife, Serena, and his son-in-law, Honorius, the mutiny in the army called-up by the reforms of Stilicho, some disagreements with the senate caused by the case of Melania the Younger and compensation for Alaric and, at last, the invasion of barbarian tribes on Gaul in 406 A.D. destroyed the carefully built career of Flavius Stilicho. He didn’t decide to keep his high rank by trigge­ring off a civil war, what differed him clearly from his followers, Flavius Aetius and Flavius Ricimer.

2006/2007
L’indagine ha permesso di mettere in luce la complessità di un poema che è prima di tutto un’opera a sostegno della politica di Stilicone e contiene un messaggio, duplice (di rimprovero e parenetico), inviato all’Oriente dell’Impero relativo alla necessaria concordia fra le due parti e fra i fratelli reggenti, Onorio e Arcadio. Claudiano eleva a dignità epica un episodio politico-militare la cui conclusione, più che da una vera e propria battaglia (che nella realtà non avvenne mai), era stato determinato dall’abile strategia di Stilicone. La specificità dell’opera consiste in una elevata cifra retorica dell’elemento panegiristico di cui si è fornita documentazione. La condanna di Stilicone come hostis publicus, da parte della corte orientale, obbliga il poeta ad assegnare al generale vandalo un ruolo di secondo piano e determina l’impossibilità di attribuirgli una responsabilità diretta nella risoluzione della vicenda gildonica. Tale condizionamento storico-politico si traduce in una strategia narrativa in cui il soggetto centrale del racconto diventa Gildone, il nemico o piuttosto l’anti-eroe, a cui si contrappone in modo implicito (esplicito raramente) proprio Stilicone. Stilicone incarna così l’eroe della tradizione romana, rispettoso della fides verso i familiari (in qualità di suocero di Onorio) e la patria. Le azioni del generale vandalo sono exempla di pietas e in netta antitesi con quelle di Gildone che però non compare mai come attore nella vicenda. L’opposizione tra i due si traduce in definitiva nella vittoria morale di Stilicone. Il generale vandalo, compie il suo ingresso nel finale del poema (352), preparato dall’encomio ad opera di Teodosio il Grande. Nel poema dunque la vittoria su Gildone non viene descritta mediante il racconto dei fatti, ma è sancita sul piano etico per mezzo della contrapposizione fra i due antagonisti. Il presente lavoro cerca di mettere in luce le ragioni che nell’In Gildonem hanno determinato il silenzio di Claudiano sugli antefatti e sulle operazioni in rapporto al più dettagliato resoconto della vicenda e al vero e proprio panegirico di Stilicone nella successiva Laus. Il confronto fra le due opere indurrebbe infatti a individuare nella prima una sorta di anticipazione dei motivi enfatizzati, senza reticenze, nella Laus. In questa prospettiva di lettura le due opere risultano complementari e ciò permetterebbe di superare la posizione della critica (Döpp 1980, Hajdu 1996-1997, Charlet 2000) che ritiene l’In Gildonem incompiuto tanto da ipotizzare la mancata pubblicazione di un secondo libro.
XX Ciclo
1980

L’influence du genre épique se manifeste à travers plusieurs biais dans l’œuvre, apparemment hétérogène, de Claudien. Le poète se présente clairement comme uates, héritier d’Homère, d’Ennius et de Virgile – mais revendique une matière historique et non plus mythologique. La langue témoigne également d’une forte influence du genre épique, que ce soit dans le lexique ou l’emploi de la comparaison homérique. La reprise de motifs, parfois déformés ou renouvelés, confirme cette influence : thème guerrier, songes, présages, prodiges, prophéties, jeux… Si la morale héroïque est plus malmenée, concurrencée par les valeurs chrétiennes, l’univers épique se trouve encore actualisé à travers les figures divines et mythologiques qu’on peut appréhender au moyen d’une lecture typologique. La somme de ces éléments formels est au service d’un propos épique, poétique et politique, célébrant Roma aeterna et Natura. Il apparaît ainsi que l’écriture épique est le dénominateur commun à l’ensemble du corpus, et que les carmina maiora méritent d’être considérés comme une épopée politique
There is a clear epic vein in Claudian's apparently heterogeneous work, and it appears in a variety of ways. The poet clearly considers himself to be a uates, an heir to Homer, Ennius and Virgil, even though his subject matter is historical, not mythological. The language he uses is also strongly influenced by that of the epic genre, as exemplified by the use of a specifically epic lexicon and the resort to homeric similes. The way he builds on and renews traditional epic motifs (battle scenes, dreams, omens, miracles, prophecies, games ...) reveals the influence of the epic genre on his writings as well. Even though the ethics of heroism are undercut by the rise of Christian values, the divine and mythological figures that can be broached trough a typological reading are proof enough that the world of the epic is still very much present. All these elements contribute to a work that celebrates Roma Aeterna and Natura and is all at once epic – poetic and political. It thus appears that the epic vein is what unifies the corpus, and that the carmina maiora should be read as a political epic

Cette thèse a comme objectif de démontrer combien Alaric et ses Goths étaient Romains dans pratiquement toutes les catégories connues sur leur compte. Pour ce faire, l’auteur a puisé dans les sciences sociales et a emprunté le champ conceptuel de l’éminent sociologue Pierre Bourdieu. À l’aide du concept d’habitus, entre autres choses, l’auteur a tenté de faire valoir à quel point les actions d’Alaric s’apparentaient à celles des généraux romains de son époque. Naturellement, il a fallu étaler le raisonnement au long de plusieurs chapitres et sur de nombreux niveaux. C’est-à-dire qu’il a fallu d’abord définir les concepts populaires en ce moment pour « faire » l’histoire des barbares durant l’Antiquité tardive. Pensons ici à des termes tels que l’ethnicité et l’ethnogenèse. L’auteur s’est distancé de ces concepts qu’il croyait mal adaptés à la réalité des Goths et d’Alaric. C’est qu’il fallait comprendre ces hommes dans une structure romaine, au lieu de leur octroyer une histoire et des traditions barbares. Il a ensuite fallu montrer que la thèse explorait des avenues restées peu empruntées jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Il a été question de remonter jusqu’à Gibbon pour ensuite promouvoir le fait que quelques érudits avaient autrefois effleuré la question d’Alaric comme étant un homme beaucoup moins barbare que ce que la tradition véhiculait à son sujet, tel que Fustel de Coulanges, Amédée Thierry ou encore Marcel Brion. Il s’agissait donc de valider l’angle de recherche en prenant appui d’abord sur ces anciens luminaires de la discipline. Vint ensuite l’apport majeur de cette thèse, c’est-à-dire essentiellement les sections B, C et D. La section B a analysé la logistique durant la carrière d’Alaric. Cette section a permis avant tout de démontrer clairement qu’on n’a pas affaire à une troupe de brigands révoltés; le voyage de 401-402 en Italie prouve à lui seul ce fait. L’analyse approfondie de l’itinéraire d’Alaric durant ses nombreux voyages a démontré que cette armée n’aurait pas pu effectuer tous ces déplacements sans l’appui de la cour orientale. En l’occurrence, Alaric et son armée étaient véritablement des soldats romains à ce moment précis, et non pas simplement les fédérés barbares de la tradition. La section C s’est concentrée sur les Goths d’Alaric, où on peut trouver deux chapitres qui analysent deux sujets distincts : origine/migration et comparaison. C’est dans cette section que l’auteur tente de valider l’hypothèse que les Goths d’Alaric n’étaient pas vraiment Goths, d’abord, et qu’ils étaient plutôt Romains, ensuite. Le chapitre sur la migration n’a comme but que de faire tomber les nombreuses présomptions sur la tradition gothe que des érudits comme Wolfram et Heather s’efforcent de défendre encore aujourd’hui. L’auteur argumente pour voir les Goths d’Alaric comme un groupe formé à partir d’éléments romains; qu’ils eurent été d’une origine barbare quelconque dans les faits n’a aucun impact sur le résultat final : ces hommes avaient vécu dans l’Empire durant toute leur vie (Alaric inclus) et leurs habitus ne pouvaient pas être autre chose que romain. Le dernier chapitre de la section C a aussi démontré que le groupe d’Alaric était d’abord profondément différent des Goths de 376-382, puis d’autres groupes que l’on dit barbares au tournant du 5e siècle, comme l’étaient les Vandales et les Alamans par exemple. Ensemble, ces trois chapitres couvrent la totalité de ce que l’on connait du groupe d’Alaric et en offre une nouvelle interprétation à la lumière des dernières tendances sociologiques. La section D analyse quant à elle en profondeur Alaric et sa place dans l’Empire romain. L’auteur a avant tout lancé l’idée, en s’appuyant sur les sources, qu’Alaric n’était pas un Goth ni un roi. Il a ensuite analysé le rôle d’Alaric dans la structure du pouvoir de l’Empire et en est venu à la conclusion qu’il était l’un des plus importants personnages de l’Empire d’Orient entre 397 et 408, tout en étant soumis irrémédiablement à cette structure. Sa carrière militaire était des plus normale et s’inscrivait dans l’habitus militaire romain de l’époque. Il a d’ailleurs montré que, par ses actions, Alaric était tout aussi Romain qu’un Stilicon. À dire le vrai, mis à part Claudien, rien ne pourrait nous indiquer qu’Alaric était un barbare et qu’il essayait d’anéantir l’Empire. La mauvaise image d’Alaric n’est en effet redevable qu’à Claudien : aucun auteur contemporain n’en a dressé un portrait aussi sombre. En découle que les auteurs subséquents qui firent d’Alaric le roi des Goths et le ravageur de la Grèce avaient sans doute été fortement influencés eux aussi par les textes de Claudien.
This thesis hopes to demonstrate how Alaric and his Goths were Romans in virtually all that is known about them. To do this, the author has drawn from the social sciences to take the conceptual scope of the eminent sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Using the concept of habitus, among other things, the author has tried to argue how Alaric’s ‘habits’ were similar to those of the Romans of his time. Naturally, the reasoning was spread over several chapters and on several levels. That is to say, it was first necessary to define the concepts popular at this time to "tell" the History of the Barbarians in Late Antiquity. We have to think here of terms such as ethnicity and ethnogenesis. The author has distanced himself from these concepts he thought ill-suited to the reality of the Goths and of Alaric. We should understand these men in a Roman structure, instead of granting them a History and/or barbaric traditions. He then had to show that the thesis explored avenues which have remained understudied until today. He had to start with Gibbon and work his way up the erudite chart while promoting the fact that some scholars had previously touched on Alaric as a man much less barbaric than the tradition was promoting, such as Fustel de Coulanges, Amédée Thierry and Marcel Brion. It was therefore important to validate the research angle by first acknowledging the place of these great scholars. Then came the major contribution of this thesis, that is to say essentially the sections B, C and D. Section B is focusing on the logistical side of Alaric’s story. This section have foremost allowed to demonstrate clearly that we are not dealing with a band of revolted brigands : the travel of 402 in Italy alone proves this fact. The detailed analysis of the routes taken by Alaric during his many trips demonstrates that the army could not have done all these movements without the support of the eastern court. In that case, Alaric and his army were truly Roman soldiers and not just the barbarous federated people of the tradition. Section C focus on Alaric's Goths where one can find two chapters covering two distinct areas: Origin/Migration and Comparison. It is in this section that the author attempts to support the hypothesis that the Goths of Alaric were not really Goths but rather Romans. The chapter on migration had the goal to break down many assumptions about this gothic tradition that scholars like Wolfram and Heather are still trying to defend. The author argues to see Alaric's Goths as a group formed from Roman elements; to know if in fact any of them was of barbarian stock is irrelevant to the end result : these men had lived in the Empire throughout their entire lives (Alaric included) and their habitus could not have been anything other than Roman. The last chapter of Section C showed without any doubt that the group of Alaric was firstly deeply different from the Goths of 376-382, but then also from other groups that are said to have been barbarians at the turn of the fifth century, as were the Vandals and Alamanni for example. Together, these three chapters cover the totality of what is known about the group of Alaric and offers fresh interpretation following the last trends in social sciences. The section D is for its part an in-depth analysis of Alaric and his place in the Roman Empire. The author has demonstrated above all, relying on sources, that Alaric was not a Goth nor a king. He then analyzed the role of Alaric in the power structure of the Empire and came to the conclusion that he was one of the most important men of the Eastern Empire between 397 and 408, while still being totally dependant on that structure. His whole military career up to 397 was unassuming and was part of the Roman military habitus of the time. He also showed that by his actions, Alaric was also as Roman as Stilicho. To tell the truth, apart from Claudian, nothing could tell us that Alaric was a barbarian and was trying to destroy the Empire. The bad image of Alaric is liable only to Claudian alone : no contemporary writer did draw such a dark portrait of him. It follows that subsequent authors who made Alaric the king of the Goths and the destructor of Greece must had followed Claudian as well.