ABSTRACT: What red was to ancient Roman authors and how is it conveyed in the literature in the absence of abstract color expression? This thesis analyzes some of the convoluted ways that the ancient Romans responded to this challenge in expressions of the color red in Latin literature. One response is that the ancient Romans name shades of red after their origins, either material object or geographical location. In turn, this means that certain shades of red take on the associated connotations of their origins. Another response, as revealed through a close-text literary analysis of the adjectives sanguineus, subrufus, and rubens, is that the Romans relied on the syntax of their language to express distinct shades of red. Both patterns occur on simultaneously linguistic and material levels, particularly when looking at the origins and function of the pigment, cinnabar. As one of the main material sources of red in Roman antiquity, cinnabar was used in wall paintings and political inscriptions in Pompeii. Cinnabar also played a key role in triumphal processions. The pigment was painted onto the cheeks of the statue of Jupiter, as well as onto the bodies of victorious participants. It is then revealed that some of the ancient practices involving material red gave rise to some of the modern symbolic associations that we have of red today, such as wealth, power, victory, and vitality. In understanding the symbolism of red, the association and representation of blood is examined in the etymological origins of the pigment, cinnabar. Some meaning might have slipped through the cracks as Latin adopted Greek terminology, creating ambiguous expressions of red in the literature. The conclusion is that the ancient Romans nevertheless overcame the challenge of conceptualizing color, ultimately giving red an agency like no other.
ABSTRACT: How did the Romans see Libertas as the Republic came to an end, and how does this
connect to the Roman idea of both governance and the self? This thesis looks to examine the
complex meanings of Libertas, that stands at the heart of how the Roman Republic functioned
and thus how the Princeps developed. To do this, the thesis compares two authors, Gaius
Sallustius Crispus and Marcus Tullius Cicero, who, while holding similar ideas in Libertas,
supported different political movements and ideologies. While the basic idea of Libertas is rather
simple and linked to the differentiation between those who are slaves and those who are citizens
in the political realm, Libertas has a much more fluid conceptualization. By discussing the facets
of Libertas in the literature, and contrasting this with the events of the Catiline conspiracy and
the coming fall of the Republic, it become clear that Libertas to the Romans can not stay fully
abstract, but rather connects with the political movements of the time. In doing this, much of the
dualistic, individual and societal aspects of Libertas are drawn out. After the discussion of the
aspects of Libertas between Cicero and Sallust, their ideas are in turn put into dialog with the
writings of Tacitus. The glimpse into Libertas as the Republic fell, and then comparing how
Tacitus saw it both existing in the past, and how it no longer had a place on a societal level
during his life. This illustrates how linked Libertas was to the Roman idea of personal
betterment, social cooperation, and societal hegemony. While this thesis can not fully capture the
concept of Libertas, both in its many dynamics in each era, and within the authors, it offers a
glimpse into an often overlooked ideological linchpin of Rome. The conclusion is that Libertas
enabled both the internal freedom through virtue, known as personal control, and more
importantly the social idea of acceptance and mobility into the Roman system. That in turn
ii
helped to enable both in introduction of new citizens and fostered peace between the social
orders. Its removal by arbitrary rule, the princeps, overall jeopardized this piece, and in the eyes
of the authors stunted the growth of men.
ABSTRACT: Pythagoras was the first known advocate to voice a claim of moral rationale in opposition to the
religio-political structure of the ancient world in defense of vegetarianism. Pythagorean
vegetarianism started a shift in consciousness and new perspective of animal life in comparison
to human life that persisted largely unchanged throughout the Greco-Roman world, despite its
deep subservience of the religio-political system upon which the states of Greece and Rome
functioned. The concept of metempsychosis was carried through antiquity from Pythagoras to
Ovid, and the adoption of vegetarianism based on transmigration of the soul is seen strongly into
the early Roman Empire.
In this thesis I investigated the scope of vegetarian thought in antiquity and concluded that the
Pythagorean view of vegetarianism, based on the concept of metempsychosis, continued
persistently through different philosophers such as Empedocles, Porphyry, Plutarch. I looked at
the works of these authors in comparison to each other and in comparison to the social climate in
which they were writing their works to compare their practices of vegetarian philosophy on
grounds of morality and the ways in which it largely remained the same from the years 600BCE100CE.
ABSTRACT: My research question relates to how Augustus manipulated the literary world of his time and
how the poets he employed to secure support among the elites – specifically Propertius and Ovid
– reacted to his rule and to being used as a part of the propaganda machine and chose to express
their criticism of Augustus. The methods of investigation used mostly consist of Propertius and
Ovid’s literary works: the Elegiae for Propertius and the Amores and Metamorphoses for Ovid.
In the first part of this work the focus will be on the exploitation of myth, first by Augustus in his
propaganda program and second by the Augustan poets as a safe means to express dissent in
their works; then the discussion will move onto the nature of Maecenas’ power in Rome and his
role in the Roman literary scene and in ensuring literary support for the regime. The second part
will consider the writings of Propertius and Ovid, with a focus on the anti-Augustanism
emerging from their works. For Propertius, the discussion will revolve around his critique of
Augustus and Roman military imperialism, while, for Ovid, around his critique of Augustus’
appropriation and exploitation of state religion for the regime and his attempt to reform and
control Roman public morality. It will be concluded that Augustus used myth to elevate his
status to a mythical one and create an ever-lasting personal association with Apollo and that not
only was Maecenas’ power in Rome was extensive and very significant, but that he controlled
literature through his literary circle and secured the support of the poets for Augustus and his
rule. It will also be concluded that neither Propertius nor Ovid were sincere in their apparent
support of Augustus’ regime.
