In 1998 the author published a fragment of the lost frescoes by Gentile da Fabriano, a frieze with foliated scrolls, surviving at the top of the right wall of the Lateran Basilica, at the end of the nave towards the main altar. In that paper he reconsidered all the documentary sources for the mural paintings undertaken by Gentile and Pisanello in the Basilica and argued the idea that the cycle was projected for both walls, devoted to the life of St John Baptist and St John the Divine, but uncompleted by Pisanello himself. The Veronese painter worked probably until the eighth story (eleventh, according to other scholars) of the St. John Baptist cycle. This chapter considers three other erratic fragments, relatable to the lost mural cycle: the so-called head of David of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, the remains of a colossal head in the south-east corner of the Lateran Closter, considered by Bramante according a fanciful tradition, and the female head in the Museo Nazionale di palazzo Venezia, by Pisanello. The latter piece is examined as a new iconographic context in the St John the Baptist cycle.

The chapter explores the role of literacy and subsequently the role of a literate expert in the Roman state and society. It traces Roman education in general and scribal education in particular, analyses attitudes towards literacy and literate professionals, and outlines Roman literate practice. In a thorough review of extant sources, the chapter reconstructs Roman archival history and practice and highlights the appertaining material culture. It portrays the Roman scribae as guardians and administrators of this Roman documentary culture and exemplifies their public role as its experts.

This chapter details the use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) in the Lateran area.It offers an introduction to radar methodology before discussing results from targeted surveys inside the Archbasilica and to the north, west and south of the building. An important argument of the paper is that advanced interpretation of GPR results is best undertaken in conjunction with material derived from a range of other sources and specialist fields. The potential significance of project survey results for the interpretation of Roman topography, the construction of Constantineߣs Basilica and the development of the Patriarchium is considered.The possibility that the celebrated Triclinium of Leo III might have lain further south than previously believed is discussed in the light of findings to the north-east of the Archbasilica.

Monastic culture often represents children as problems, as barriers to the ascetic endeavor. We might be tempted to conclude that early Egyptian monks had no “family values” – that they were anti-family. Yet the literature of family (and child) renunciation exists alongside numerous literary accounts of monks healing sick children. This chapter argues that such accounts constitute a thread in Egyptian monasticism that construed children as symbolizing the future, as representatives of familial and cultural legacies. Early Egyptian monasticism shared this understanding of children and family with the larger Roman world. Monasteries, in their care for sick or demonically possessed children, acted as agents in the support and continuation of traditional families as well as the health of children. Thus, monasteries – communities of celibate ascetics – guaranteed the regeneration of Christian families.

The reconstruction of the Constantinian Basilica at the Lateran by Krautheimer and others leaves several important questions unresolved. A combination of evidence corroborates the reconstruction by Krautheimer of the two rows of nave columns of red granite. Two yellow marble columns which since the end of the sixteenth century support the organ tribune however are never mentioned in relation to the reconstruction of the fourth-century church-basilica. In fact they can be traced back to their medieval presence in the portico on the east side of the building. Their similarities with the equally yellow marble columns on the Arch of Constantine support the notion that they belong to the original, early fourth-century structure of the Basilica Constantiniana. The obvious question where they may have been positioned in the Early Christian basilica can be answered by using the archaeological evidence under the basilica. Part of a foundation running west-east underneath the south transept offers a very likely foundation for a colonnade of two yellow columns on both the north and the south side as a continuation of the rows of green marble columns between the inner and the outer aisles.

Cicero claims to represent all right-thinking citizens, the boni, associated with an ideology of traditionalism, as opposed to the populares, whom he describes as a few seditious and degenerate outliers. This reflects a partisan rhetoric associated with the so-called optimates, even though it rests on the paradoxical claim that there are not two similar parties at all. In De Domo Sua and Pro Sestio, Cicero’s partisan rhetoric construes the optimates as having a monopoly on legitimacy, particularly on the legitimate use of violence as a political tool. In a letter to his brother in 56 BCE, Cicero gives a revealing report of an episode in which Clodius and Pompey were addressing simultaneous, partisan contiones. In the Philippics Cicero reflects on the role of factions in the 50s and attempts to resurrect his polarizing rhetoric in order to brand Antony a popularis and therefore an undesirable leader.

Effusive and earnest gratitude was a trait Cicero identified as foundational in his character, particularly when playing the role of a friend. He expressed this particularly through enthusiastic and even hyperbolic praise of his friends, especially after his return from exile. When he applied this treatment to Pompey in Pro Balbo and to Caesar in De Provinciis Consularibus and Pro Marcello, the result was extravagant panegyric. He frames his praise of Pompey and Caesar as a show of gratitude in return for their support and friendship, an act of reciprocity rather than sycophancy. The persona of friend is also used to justify his surrendering of previously held positions in favor of compromise and reconciliation. He also sought to exert pressure through “friendly” advice combined with praise, to Caesar in Pro Rabirio Postumo and Pro Marcello, and to Dolabella and other young men in his letters and the First Philippic.

Cicero construed his withdrawal into exile in 58 BCE as an act of self-sacrifice for the good of his community, a political martyrdom. However, he also foregrounded the pain and misery he experienced in doing so (particularly in De Domo Sua). While his display of emotion is atypical, it was consistent with his tactics as a forensic advocate. By contrast, Cato the Younger was lionized as a political martyr even in his lifetime, but especially after his death, as illustrated in Plutarch’s biography. Cato demonstrated his moral absolutism and fortitude through filibustering and obstructionism, even at personal risk. In Pro Sestio, Cicero celebrates Cato’s noble adherence to principle and defiance of political opposition but also claims to be an exemplary political martyr himself in a more humane way. In the Philippics (especially 2, 3, 4, and 12), Cicero promises again to take great personal risk or sacrifice himself for the common good, likely influenced by Cato, but fails to win the reputation Cato achieved as a martyr.

Cicero shows deference to the senate’s will and holds up the senate’s authority as a defining characteristic of the functioning republic. The more the senate’s authority seems to erode in this period of crisis and dysfunction, the more Cicero insists on its solidarity and power. Especially in orations delivered to the senate, Cicero casts himself as a champion of the senate’s collective authority and promotes concord among its members based on a sense of shared virtue, shared values, and mutual respect.In De Haruspicum Responsis and In Pisonem, he describes his recall from exile and the restoration of his house on the Palatine as symbols of the senate’s support for him and his politics, while his opponents Piso, Gabinius, Clodius, and later Antony and Calenus (Philippics 2, 5, 7) are characterized in his orations as detested by the senate. Historically, one of the most obvious symptoms of the aspiring tyrant in Rome was contempt or abuse of the senate. He claims that Caesar shares his fidelity to the senate in De Provinciis Consularibus and Pro Marcello, and therefore is not a tyrant.

Cicero puts on an exciting show of outrage, anger, and contempt in his attacks on certain opponents, but balances attacks with statements of restraint and self-control in order to maintain his own dignity and decorum, so that he is not seen as contemptible himself. This balance can be observed in the opening sections of his speeches In Vatinium and De Haruspicum Responsis, where he particularly criticizes the failures of his targets as orators. His persona as an attacker may distract from political weakness in his speech In Pisonem. In the Second Philippic, never delivered in public, he shows less restraint. The Philippics generally show less of the balance he maintained earlier in his career, probably due to political circumstances. While this persona will be familiar to most readers of Cicero, it is a good initial example of how Cicero portrays contemporary people and events through a distorting lens. It is also a good example of how Cicero uses (or weaponizes) norms to police others, often by claiming to embody those norms himself.

Pompey and Caesar often found young, ambitious politicians, especially tribunes, looking to boost their own careers by riding a dynast’s coattails, and the dynasts themselves were happy for the legislative and rhetorical support of their juniors. Cicero tried to find a middle ground between full-throated opposition to the dynasts and a role as their spokesman, as can be seen particularly in De Domo Sua, Pro Caelio, Pro Balbo, and later in Pro Marcello. Clodius sometimes portrayed himself as a spokesman or agent for the “first triumvirate,” although he also sometimes distanced himself from them or attacked Pompey in particular, as we see in De Domo Sua and De Haruspicum Responsis. Asconius’ commentary on Pro Milone and letters from Cicero and Caelius show that Curio and Antony gained prominence as Caesar’s spokesmen in the lead-up to the civil war in 50–49 BCE.