Parallel session 5, panel 1: Memory and Roman ethics

(Friday 22^nd June, 11.30-1pm)

Palaces of Memory, Houses of Forgetfulness? Architectural Space and Selective Memory in Pliny’s Epistles
Hannah Kirk-Evans (University of Cambridge)

While the term ‘memory palace’ is not itself an ancient one, the ideas behind the term have their roots in antiquity. Beginning from key authors on Roman mnemonic techniques, such as Cicero, Quintilian, and the anonymous author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, this paper will explore how we might consider the potential relationship between these texts and some architectural spaces from Pliny’s Letters. Pliny’s letters on his Laurentine (2.17) and Tuscan (5.6) villas, as the most extended descriptions of architectural space within the Epistles, evidently lend themselves well to this kind of investigation. Pliny’s villas are complex, labyrinthine spaces, which represent a retreat from the urban world of business and are dedicated to intellectual pursuits. While the link between the villa letters and these mnemonic spaces has been noted (e.g. Bergmann 1995; McEwen 1995), this connection may be fruitfully expanded to consider in more detail how Pliny makes allusion to mnemonic spaces in order to engage in moments of selective memory and deliberate forgetfulness. In particular, this paper will consider how these moments of selective memory form part of Pliny’s navigation of his relationship with the posthumously-loathed emperor Domitian. Turning from the villas to a less peaceful space, the paper will then move to focus on Pliny’s story of the haunted house rented by the philosopher Athenodorus in Epistle 7.27, exploring how this episode might represent a practical application of the earlier mnemonic lessons. The ultimate ghost of Ep. 7.27 is once more Domitian (Baraz 2012), the memory of whom Pliny is trying to exorcise as he re-purposes the principles of mnemonic training for his own ends. Ep. 7.27, this paper will argue, represents a dramatization of the process of selective memory that pervades so much of Pliny’s epistolary project.

Commodus: Contrast between how memory sanctions are displayed in the literary sources versus the archaeological evidence
Stefanie Ulrich (Birkbeck, University of London)

This paper will examine the discrepancy between the literary sources and archaeological evidence regarding the memory sanctions of Commodus. This becomes clearer when talking about controversial figures, the so-called “bad emperors”.

For example, Dio mentions that Marcus Aurelius must have perceived beforehand that his son was of great simplicity, a coward and “[…] led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature” (Dio 73.2). He indicated that Marcus Aurelius did not see Commodus as suitable to succeed him to the throne. This point of view is not reflected in the archaeological evidence: coins were commissioned in AD 176 that promoted Commodus’ new title of imperator, to promote him as co-emperor alongside his father which could suggest that Dio might have been wrong in his evaluation. This is just one of several examples that show the importance of considering an interdisciplinary approach and the relevance of equality of the subjects.

So, how are these memory sanctions portrayed in the ancient sources? Which measures are taken to make sure that these people are forgotten? Or is this rather counterproductive and helps to memorize those “bad” emperors even more?

Literary sources like Dio have a strong influence on how modern scholars interpret a person like Commodus. The classification of good and bad emperors is not completely modern – ancient authors make it quite clear who is good or bad - but scholars rely on those terms without much questioning. An important question to ask is the motivation behind the author and his text. Dio was a senator under Commodus, thereby a contemporary and due to the nature of Commodus’ politics, belonged to the group who had the most to lose. Is it possible that this fear also influenced the way he recorded Commodus’ behaviour?

The aim is to demonstrate that the literary sources have been favoured in scholarship in comparison to the archaeological ones which inevitably influenced the interpretation of Commodus’ standing. This re-evaluation could cast new light on our understanding of Commodus.

What it means to be a Cato to the state
Leanne Jansen (Leiden University)

There is only one Republican statesman who could confidently carry the weight of being the most virtuous of all: Cato the Younger. Valerius Maximus (2.10.8) neatly summarises what this meant for Cato’s historical legacy: quae quidem effecit ut quisquis sanctum et egregium civem significare velit, sub nomine Catonis definiat (“this [virtuousness] now has caused everybody who wishes to point out a venerable and excellent citizen to define him by use of the name Cato”). After the suicide at Utica Cato quickly became a Roman exemplum. His steadfastness, his self-chosen end, and his unwavering defence of conservative values made him into a hero and a martyr for the Republic.

Bloomer (1992) and Gowing (2005) have demonstrated that imperial representations of Cato are strongly rhetoricised and depoliticised, repeating a fixed set of qualities that was formed and cultivated in the declamation halls. However, the idea of being a – rather than the – Cato was something that originated much earlier. In his letters to Atticus of 45 and 44 BC, Cicero speaks of being “a Cato” when it is necessary to stand up for the Republic (Att. 16.1; 17.4). A more straightforward option would have been to say “someone like Cato”. Thus, interestingly, the name Cato functions as a metaphor from a very early stage of his posthumous commemoration.

In my paper I shall examine this commemorative process by looking at the early imperial consolidation of Cato Uticensis as ‘Cato’, the Idea of a republican. Especially striking is that the most prolific disseminator of republican values, Cicero, did not turn into the exemplum for republicanism, even though his figure became similarly iconic (Kaster 1998). Following present ideas about Roman exemplarity (Flaig 1999; Gowing 2005; Bücher 2006; Lowrie 2007), I will analyse the contrasting images of Cato and Cicero in the historical tradition, with a specific focus on the Tiberian scholars Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus. This includes a reconsideration of the ‘depoliticisation’ proposed by Bloomer and Gowing. As I shall argue, it was exactly on political grounds that Cato became known as the freedom fighter of the late Republic.

REFERENCES

Bloomer, W. M. 1992. Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility, Chapel Hill/London.

Bücher, F. 2006. Verargumentierte Geschichte. Exempla Romana im politischen Diskurs der späten Römischen Republik, Stuttgart.

Flaig, E. 1999. ‘Die soziale Bedingungen des Vergessens’, in G. Didi-Hubermann (ed.). Vorträge aus dem Warburg Haus 3, 31-100.

Gowing, A.M. 2005. Empire and Memory. The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture, Cambridge.

Lowrie, M. 2007. ‘Making an “Exemplum” of Yourself: Cicero and Augustus’, in S.J. Heyworth (ed.). Classical

Constructions. Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean, 91-112.

Kaster, R. 1998. ‘Becoming ‘CICERO’’, in P. Knox & C. Foss (edd.). Style and Tradition. Studies in Honour of Wendell

Clausen, 248-263.