This article presents three brief case studies of the way Romans talked about and expressed contempt. It examines aspects of discourses about contempt that are characteristic both of Roman literature and of modern concepts. The focus is on the relationship of hierarchy, recognition, and (active and passive) contempt in the Latin vocabulary and in two literary motifs taken from invective and historiography, two genres in which expressions of contempt are particularly frequent and prominent.
AdlerE. (2011). Valorizing the barbarians. Enemy speeches in Roman historiography. University of Texas Press.
2.
BellM. (2013). Hard feelings. The moral psychology of contempt. Oxford University Press.
3.
BrennanG.PettitP. (2004). The economy of esteem.An essay on civil and political society. Oxford University Press.
4.
DarwallS. (2018). Contempt as an other-characterizing, ‘hierarchizing’ attitude. In MasonM. (Ed.), The moral psychology of contempt (pp. 193–215). Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
FreudenburgK. (2020). Feeling with the Romans: The cultural psychology of ancient contempt. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 4a ser. 18(2), 150–172.
6.
GlareP. G. W. (Ed.) (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
7.
Hubbell, H. M. (1949). Cicero: On invention. The best kind of orator. Topics. Trans. H. M. Hubbell. Loeb Classical Library 386. Harvard University Press.
8.
Jackson, J. (1937). Tacitus: Annals: Books 13–16. Trans. J. Jackson. Loeb Classical Library 322. Harvard University Press.
9.
KasterR. A. (2001). The dynamics of ‘fastidium’ and the ideology of disgust. TAPA, 131, 143–189.
10.
KasterR. A. (2005). Emotion, restraint, and community in ancient Rome. Oxford University Press.
11.
KosterS. (1980). Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur.Hain.
12.
KösterI. K. (2014). Feasting Centaurs and Destructive Consuls in Cicero’s «In Pisonem». Illinois Classical Studies, 39, 63–79.
13.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
14.
LanglandsR. (2015). Roman exemplarity: Mediating between general and particular. In LowrieM.LüdemannS. (Eds.), Exemplarity and singularity: Thinking through particulars in philosophy, literature, and law (pp. 68–80). Routledge.
15.
MayJ. M. (1988). Trials of character: The eloquence of Ciceronian ethos.University of North Carolina Press.
16.
MayJ. M. (1996). Cicero and the Beasts. Syllecta Classica, 7, 143–153.
17.
McCormickS. (2014). Argument by comparison: An Ancient Typology. Rhetorica, 32(2), 148–164.
18.
NisbetR. G. M. (Ed.). (1961). In L. Calpurnium Pisonem oratio. Clarendon Press.
19.
PauschD. (2021). Virtuose Niedertracht: die Kunst der Beleidigung in der Antike.Beck.
20.
RiggsbyA. M. (2004). The rhetoric of character in the Roman courts. In PowellJ. G. F.PatersonJ. (Eds.), Cicero the advocate (pp. 165–185). Oxford University Press.
21.
RollerM. (2009). The exemplary past in Roman culture. In FeldherrA. (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge (pp. 214–230). Cambridge University Press.
22.
Watts, N. H. (1931). Cicero: Pro milone. In pisonem. Pro scauro. Pro fonteio. Pro rabirio postumo. Pro marcello. Pro ligario. Pro rege deiotaro. Trans. N. H. Watts. Loeb Classical Library 252. Harvard University Press.
23.
Wulff (1907). Contemno, -tempsī, -temptum, -ere. In Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Online, 4(0), 635–646.
