![]() 6 Suetonius is certainly one of the Roman authors who most frequently uses these bestial, qualifying (.).The figure of the emperor-beast: the denunciation of the tyrant, persecutor and/or enemy of Rome To analyse the messages conveyed by these critical metaphorizations of Rome as animals, I will distinguish between images that are applied to individuals (like the Roman emperor or a corrupt official) and those applied to a collective entity (corrupt agents of the Roman State, groups of people challenging the order of the state or the Roman people as a whole). While similes to animals or beasts often represent a moral criticism of the persons being animalised, the trope is sometimes used to do more than simply denounce vices and can constitute a form of political criticism.ģI wish to present here the evolution of these uses of animal imagery to characterize Rome in the longue durée, specifically by placing non-Christian and Christian sources into dialogue. 3 Behind all these images is a common aim: to attribute to the disparaged group of people characteristics associated with the animal mentioned, showing how they lie beyond the bounds of humanity.ĢI propose in this paper to examine a different perspective: the uses of animal metaphors or similes to criticize Roman power. 2 Christian authors adopted this imagery as well, using analogous similes and metaphors to depict pagans and heretics. 1 A very similar logic is at play, when Roman authors equate, or at least compare, barbarian peoples – living at the edges of the Empire or in its more remote regions – with animals or monstrous creatures. For slaves as for conquered peoples, the rhetorical result is the same by equating conquered peoples to tamed or tied up animals, the Romans sought to represent them as subhuman. 3 For an example of a Christian author who associated pagans with beasts to highlight their stupidit (.)ġThe identification of foreign peoples conquered by Rome with cattle under the yoke, iugum, of Rome, is a theme pervading Roman sources from the 1 st century BCE onwards.2 About the animalisation of barbarians see Isaac 2011 Isaac 2004, p. 196-202.1 On the use of this animal imagery to depict conquered peoples, see Lavan 2013, p. 83-88, 103-104.Once I have shown that, in most cases, Roman power figures or people were associated with wild animals or monstrous beasts, I will highlight the distinctiveness of the Jewish perspective, that is, the comparison of Rome, in rabbinic sources, to a pig or a boar. One aim of this paper is to highlight the evolution of these uses of animal imagery to characterize Rome in the longue durée, specifically, by placing non-Christian and Christian sources into dialogue. Animal imagery could be employed to direct political criticism against Roman power, be it criticism of the emperor, the agents of imperial power in the provinces, or the Roman people as a whole. While the assimilation of people to wild animals or monstrous beasts often represented a form of moral criticism, in some cases the trope was used to do more than simply denounce vices. ![]() I propose in this paper to approach animal imagery from a different perspective: to examine the use of animal similes or metaphors to criticize Roman power. Ancient authors who equated or associated barbarians, pagans and heretics with animals and monstrous creatures shared a common rhetorical aim: to highlight the fact that they lie beyond the bounds of humanity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |