2016

In this contribution, I attempt to bring a thorough compilation of both the literary and the epigraphic sources on educators in Late Antiquity. For the latter sources, the focus will be on the rich inscriptional evidence from the City of Rome. Professional, usually servile, educators were common in elite and (upper)-middle class households of the Principate. This changed in Late Antiquity when households instead relied mainly on family members as educators. However, this fundamental change in hierarchical values of the honourable Roman society is never attested explicitly in the ancient records. There are some indications in the works of literary writers, but the inscriptions cannot be used to prove this change statistically. Still, the change must have been profound : educational tasks, which were in the mind-set of a Roman family members so much linked with servile labour, became more entrusted to other family members. It is only by looking at the wider context that we can catch a glimpse of how fundamentally things might have changed for educators and the families which made use of their services. Ideas of social hierarchy still existed in Late Antiquity, and so there still were slave educators. However, by the late sixth century, all this was embedded in a society which would have been hardly recognisable by those who lived there two centuries before.

In our analyses of the Ancient World, we tend to attribute literacy in extremes; either someone studied under the tutelage of intellectuals, learned about poetry and debated philosophers or were wholly separate from any educational environment. The intent of thesis is to demonstrate that ordinary citizens had exposure to written language (Greek or Latin) in varying degrees. In addition to their ability to read and comprehend written text, there were different opportunities for lower class citizens to receive an education that mirrored (at least in part) the education of the upper class and elite. Students learned more than just a pragmatic use of the language; they had an acumen of Virgil, Homer, and other prolific poets because their moral education was rooted in the pious heroes that espoused these virtues. The first part of this inquiry aims to disprove the idea that there was a very limited number of educated elite in the Roman Empire and illiterate masses still functioned cohesively in society; essentially, arguing against the likening of Rome to Europe in the Dark Ages. Yet, based on the evidence of widespread written text and writing materials, teachers for all levels, and professions requiring a working knowledge of the language, we cannot assert such a rate of illiteracy. The first chapter closes with and looks at the relationship between the oral appreciation and the pragmatic understanding of the written language as well as why contemporary students might prefer the Classical Model of education. The final part identifies the significance of education in the lives of the scholars and emperors; whether they were born in the Italian peninsula or a province of the empire, the quality and depth of one’s education raised himself far above his competitors; securing authority rested on exemplary ability in rhetoric and philosophy. Subsequent emperors deemed education so crucial that imperial decrees banished deviant religions from academic institutions fearing their beliefs might overtake their own. In conclusion, this thesis argues that literacy was much higher in Ancient Rome and discusses the vast influence education had on the realisation of an individual’s intellectual pursuits and political consequences for the Empire.

New Approaches to Written Documents in Imperial Life and Literature, 2022

Confronted with Ferraris's philosophical theory, this chapter reflects on the historian's and epigraphist's relationship to 'documents.' Various examples demonstrate that Buckland's response to Ferraris on the theme of "What is a document?", in particular his tripartite division of documents, can be applied to the study of ancient history. However, far from being mutually exclusive, the three definitions-made as, made into, considered as-most often interfere in our use of documents, and indeed they did interfere at the time these objects were produced. And they also interfere in their 'second' life (afterlife) as searched for and studied objects. It is the scholar who 'makes the document' and not the other way round. For many relics of antiquity, the recognition of their status as documents is a recent fact. The most interesting thing for a historian is to ask a question, preferably a new one, and to try to identify a group of traces that can be used to answer it, in order to create documents that can be used scientifically for this purpose.

2022

Confronted with Ferraris's philosophical theory, this chapter reflects on the historian's and epigraphist's relationship to 'documents.' Various examples demonstrate that Buckland's response to Ferraris on the theme of "What is a document?", in particular his tripartite division of documents, can be applied to the study of ancient history. However, far from being mutually exclusive, the three definitions-made as, made into, considered as-most often interfere in our use of documents, and indeed they did interfere at the time these objects were produced. And they also interfere in their 'second' life (afterlife) as searched for and studied objects. It is the scholar who 'makes the document' and not the other way round. For many relics of antiquity, the recognition of their status as documents is a recent fact. The most interesting thing for a historian is to ask a question, preferably a new one, and to try to identify a group of traces that can be used to answer it, in order to create documents that can be used scientifically for this purpose.

Like any other object of scholarly inquiry, Roman historiography is an everchanging topic in terms of how it is perceived and studied. Earlier generations of philologists focused on the language, style and narrative techniques of individual authors. Such themes continue to be addressed, but have constantly been extended and reinterpreted in new ways, most recently under the influence of literary and cultural theory and other post-structural approaches to literary texts.1 As for the concerns of historical research, after the birth of critical history these have largely centered on bias and, to no lesser degree, on the evidentiary basis of the information conveyed by the ancient historians. In the 19th century many scholars indulged in Quellenforschung, which eventually matured into the study of the fragments of lost authors; such material has to this day continued to attract a fair amount of attention. One of the really big issues of 20th-century scholarship was the general reliability of the annalistic tradition; this very animated discussion, which still goes on, has been fuelled by a growing body of archaeological and epigraphic evidence. During the last few decades the scope has gradually broadened from a primary focus on authors and works of historiography to include all sorts of expressions, in the entire literary canon, of historical thought, historical consciousness and historical culture. Also audience expectations and reception, within their ideological and communicative framework, have emerged as new categories for study. We also note that the theoretical currents associated with the linguistic turn have * I owe a debt of gratitude to several people who have helped me at the various stages of the preparation of this paper. Especially my co-editor, professor Christopher Smith, has been most helpful, but also professor emerita Eva Margareta Steinby and professor Jyri Vaahtera read early drafts and provided most valuable comments. And Ms. Jasmin Lukkari kindly and competently assisted me in checking bibliographic references in the libraries of Rome. 1 For a discussion of how postmodern historiographical theory has affected our perception of the evidence provided by the Roman historians, see Batstone , 24-40.