The large quantity of invective deployed by aristocrats in Roman criminal cases and political arguments of the late Republic has led scholars to argue that Romans considered character of great probative value. This dissertation examines the surprising fact that in such an environment, where reputation was one of the most important assets of an aristocrat, some individuals began to respond to criticism of their character in a manner that had not been seen in the earlier Republic – nearly admitting to certain character flaws. The foremost practitioner of this strategy was Cicero.Herein I trace how he often responded to criticism by avoiding denial and instead responded with misleading admissions that shifted the meanings of accusations to grounds on which he had an advantage. I also provide anecdotal evidence for such a practice in Caesar and Catullus, as well as Quintilian’s positive assessment of it.I argue that contemporary sociolinguistic studies of such strategies indicate that the individuals who are most likely to learn such strategies often come from ;;macho” cultures in times of political upheaval who have challenged the dominant ethos of that culture.In other words, the more an individual is criticized by others, the more that individual learns that the best response to criticism is often one that minimizes its seriousness or dismisses it altogether.Such was the case with Cicero and Catullus, whose pursuit of distinction did not follow the traditional military path, and to some extent with Caesar, whose political ambitions threatened the senatorial dominance of Rome’s political structure.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
