Suetonius on Tiberius' Misanthropy and Self-Reproach (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ch. Vassallo (ed.), Presocratics and Papyrological Tradition. A Philosophical Reappraisal of the Sources, Boston/New York: de Gruyter [“Studia Praesocratica”], 2019
The central core of the Life of Heraclitus handed down by Diogenes Laërtius is represented by a biographical-characterological portrait, in which the haughtiness and the superciliousness attributed to this philosopher are ridiculed for openly satirical and polemical purposes. Substantial analogies are detectable in the moral-protreptic letter 'On the Relieving of Arrogance', amply quoted and paraphrased by Philodemus in the closing section of PHerc. 1008 (['On Arrogance'], cols. 10-24). Significantly, at the beginning of the latter (col. 10.16-26 Ranocchia) Heraclitus is expressly mentioned, along with other philosophers and poets, amongst those who became arrogant «on account of philosophy». To the similarities formerly identified by W. Knögel and S.N. Mouraviev it is now possible to add numerous further thematic correspondences between these writings, which suggest that both originally belonged to the same philosophical tradition, whose goal was to describe, and cure, arrogance. This tradition possibly embraced both a general illustration/therapy of vice and specific exemplifications of it by means of lively portraits of ‘arrogant’ philosophers and poets like Heraclitus, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Socrates, Hippias and Euripides.
2023
This is an uncorrected pre-proof version. In his discussion of decorum Cicero supposes that most people would agree to the general principle that in our speech, bodily deportment, and actions we should avoid giving offense to others and should avoid generating feelings of disgust or revulsion. This is because we possess a sense of shame or verecundia. The particular details are very culture-specific: customs and conventions largely set the parameters of verecundia, and we do well to follow them. Cicero also admits that philosophical figures often flout established customs and conventions: he points to Socrates, who is justified in doing so owing to his great and godlike virtue, and the Cynics, who are not justified in doing so at all (1.148). He then sets out a bold thesis: ‘Indeed the reasoning of the Cynics must be rejected absolutely; for it is inimical to a sense of shame (verecundia), without which nothing can be upright (rectum), nothing honourable (honestum)’. For the Cynics, verecundia is not natural; hence we are justified in flouting customs and conventions. Cicero develops a counter-argument: the source of shame or verecundia is indeed natural. I explore his argument for this thesis (which appears at 1.126ff.) and assess his critique of the Cynics.
FEELING WITH THE ROMANS: THE CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY OF ANCIENT CONTEMPT 1
Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 2020
This paper examines the commonalities of thought, cultural practice, and collective belief that stand behind ancient Roman discussions of contempt. By way of detailed analysis of specific discussions of contempt (where the idea is conveyed by a fairly narrow range of interrelated terms, such as contemptus, despicere, spernere, fastidium), it will be shown that Roman contemptus differs from modern western (esp. English and American) ideas about contempt in several fundamental ways: instead of being keyed primarily to perceptions of competence and moral worth, Roman contempt is connected to ideas about power, nobility, and social standing, especially as these qualities of personal and cultural worth were negotiated in the public eye and, in fact, were largely brought about by visual means.
Roman Conception of Self and Others
Review of European Studies, 2018
This paper discusses ancient Romans’ auto-stereotypes and hetero-stereotypes, which are respectively the way they identify themselves and other peoples. Organized thematically, the sections center around the thesis that stereotypes were influenced by and in turn influenced Rome’s historical development. They unfold to address virtus and benevolent conqueror as two major auto-stereotypes and Greeks as a major group to which major hetero-stereotypes direct. The essay refers to primary texts in an attempt to reveal the psychology behind stereotypes, and points out their dynamic nature. Its major arguments are that virtus and the conception of justice in conquests both have stabilizing effects on Rome’s politics; the evolution of Roman view towards Greece reflects manipulation of individuals as well as historical contexts.
PROGRESSIVE ARROGANCE (Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim)
Did the events we are going to tell you about really take place in history? It is hard to be sure. If they really did happen, then they have undoubtedly made their contribution to the collective formation of social culture and ethics. On the other side, if such facts did not take place in the past and these stories were only a side product of the historical process – just a fiction, then it would still be surely possible to find similar stories in the centuries-old social memory… The essence of things is always there, available for us, but it becomes truly ours in various forms only as our mind and spirit become ready for it…
When, as historians of the ancient past, we try to decipher or classify the medical and psychological descriptors of disparate human characteristics, we find that we are clumsy foreigners, disoriented and barely literate. We only become nimble on the terrain -more familiar to us -of methodologies of discrimination: it is political, social and economic status, as always, that shapes categorisation.
Cynic Shamelessness in Late Sixteenth-Century French Texts
The Modern Language Review, 2004
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Review. http://www.jstor.org CYNIC SHAMELESSNESS IN LATE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH TEXTS 'Chacun a ouy parler de la des-hontee faCon de vivre des philosophes Cynicques': so says Montaigne in editions of the Essais published in his lifetime.' Indeed, the Cynics and, in particular, their best-known representative, Diogenes of Sinope of the fourth century BC, were notorious from ancient times onwards for their shameless ways.2 According to the anecdotes, for which the most important source is the sixth book of Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers of the third century AD, Diogenes achieved fame and infamy for his strange blend of asceticism, shamelessness, and ready wit. Diogenes regularly performed shocking acts: spitting into people's faces, disrupting lectures by eating salt-fish, as well as urinating, defecating, and masturbating in public.3 One of Diogenes' disciples, Crates of Thebes, married Hipparchia of Maronea, who, as a Cynic, became the most famous female philosopher of the ancient world. Their 'dog-marriage' (kunogamia), which involved them living and sleeping together in public, brought them notoriety in antiquity and beyond. Such bad manners on the part of Hellenistic philosophers were bound to attract the attention of Montaigne and his contemporaries, fascinated as they were by ancient models of behaviour. As Montaigne suggests, Cynic shamelessness is almost a commonplace: it is discussed in many late sixteenth-century French texts, including Breslay's Anthologie, the dialogues of Cholieres and Bouchet, the Essais, as well as in religious and medical works. A passing reference by Rabelais in the Tiers Livre to sex 'faicte en veue du Soleil, a la Cynique' provides further evidence of the commonplace status of Cynic shamelessness.4 By the early seventeenth century, Diogenes' lewd conduct is sufficiently well known for Randle Cotgrave, in his Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (16 I I), to define 'Faire le sucre' as 'To frig, to wriggle, to commit Diogenes his sinne'.5 There is a sense, however, in which the scandalous antics of the Cynics could never be commonplace, since they pose too great a threat to civilized values. This partly explains why works which contain versions of the life of Diogenes, including, for example, Pedro Mexia's Silva de varia lecci6n (1540), which was available in French from 1552 onwards, and Andre Thevet's Les Vrais Pourtraits (584), refuse to countenance tales of shamelessness. It also gives rise to the crucial difference between accounts of Cynic shamelessness and the kind of sexual explicitness or lewdness Les Essais, ed. by Pierre Villey and V.-L. Saulnier, 2nd edn, 3 vols (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992), II, 12, p. 583 n. 7. This sentence was omitted from the posthumous edition of I595. 2 See Derek Krueger, 'The Bawdy and Society: The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture', in The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy, ed. by R. Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Caz6, Hellenistic Culture and Society, 23
Honor and Humiliation in Apuleius’ Apologia
2015
Apuleius’ Apologia has consistently drawn scholarly attention as an example of soaring rhetoric from the Second Sophistic and for being the only remaining account of a trial for illegal magic from the early Empire. This study opts for a different approach. It uses the Apologia as a window into the culture of Roman provincial high society by examining Apuleius’ motivations for demanding his accusers bring formal charges against him, as well as the social factors that pushed the preceding conflict to such a dramatic climax. The main contention of this inquiry is that the actions of both Apuleius and his enemies reveal the paramount importance of honor as a cultural driver of conflict, and particularly its vocalization in the parry and riposte of insults and humiliation that ultimately resulted in a theatrical courtroom confrontation. The results of this micro-study in Roman provincial life should thus provide a useful complement to both Ifie & Thompson’s excellent paper on Rank, Social Status and Esteem in Apuleius (1977-1978) as well as J.E. Lendon’s magisterial Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World (1997). It also adds a practical dimension to Lateiner’s detailed analysis of Apuleius’ literary strategies of humiliation and embarrassment in his Metamorphoses (2001).