Laughter in Ancient Rome( On Joking Tickling and Cracking Up)[LAUGHTER IN ANCIENT ROME][Hardcover]

Sather Classical Lectures

by MaryBeard

Laughter in Ancient Rome( On Joking Tickling and Cracking Up) <> Hardcover <> MaryBeard <> UniversityofCaliforniaPress

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Classics, Humor, Classical Studies, Audiobook

Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Myke Cole · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought I'd give Beard another shot after Confronting the Classics left me so cold (and sick to my stomach, after reading her commentary on the eroticism of pedagogy). My mistake.

Beard manages the signal accomplishment of making a book on laughter boring and impenetrable. Again, she focuses on theory and academic debates, instead of getting to the heart of what readers care about (and what the book falsely promises) an examination of what made the Romans laugh, and what laughter meant to them. Beard is endlessly self-referential, clobbering the reader with deep-dives into minute theories of the study of laughter that aren't particularly relevant to THIS laughter, and are incredibly tedious readers who aren't scholars of laughter and humor.

I'd say I'm not this book's intended audience, but seeing how it's the second Beard book to suffer from this, I'm ready to put the blame on her. Done with Beard, thanks.

Ahem. Done with the writer named beard. I'm keeping my beard.

[María Carpio · Rating 4 out of 5]

¿De qué se reían los antiguos romanos? Esta es la pregunta que trata de resolver este libro. Su título suena más ligero de lo que es. Mucho más. En realidad es un ensayo analítico sobre qué es lo que consideraban risible los romanos, en función de su imaginario social e idiosincrasia. No es una colección de chistes o bromas (aunque las hay), pero sí es un recuento analítico de varios textos y anécdotas recogidos por poetas, dramaturgos, cronistas e historiadores de la época del imperio romano, en los que la risa es el centro de un entramado social muy peculiar. Aristóteles, Plauto, Cicerón, Ovidio, Apuleyo, entre otros, desfilan en estas páginas, siendo su humor, sus teorías sobre la risa o su postura frente a ella, desmenuzadas con precisión. Es un ensayo histórico-antropológico muy minucioso y ampliamente documentado que me recordó a uno que buscaba serlo y no lo consiguió: El infinito en un junco, de Irene Vallejo (sobre la historia de los libros en el mundo antiguo). Al leer La risa en la antigua Roma se hace evidente el abismo de calidad que separa a ambas obras. Esto último no tiene nada que ver con esta obra, pero simplemente me recordó el por qué no disfrute el best seller de Vallejo.

[Petruccio Hambasket IV · Rating 4 out of 5]

Holy crap. Mary Beard has a true gift for making things people thought they knew practically unrecognizable. This time the study is Roman laughter: but even more broadly speaking, the idea of laughter as a field of historical inquiry (whether to study the practice of laughter itself or simply the theories, again she doesn't exactly know). There are about a million questions raised in this book, some of them are incredibly introspective and made my head spin when considering. For example: "Is laughter strictly the property of human beings?", "Is the idea of uncontrollability in laughter a myth? (are all types of laughter learned?)", "What is the difference between Greek and Roman laughter?", "Does creative translation blur all original meaning?", "How is the 'domesticated' laughter of everyday human interaction different to types of purely physical responses?", and "How much did influence did Aristotle's work actually have on ancient theories" is just a minuscule catalog of ideas floating around in this text (and thats just the first 40 pages folks).

If you think she successfully answers these, or even one of these, questions in this book 200 page work you are greatly mistaken. However I think the appeal of this work is not found in the answers but in the clever reorganization and reinterpretation of scholarly notions pertaining to the field. Beard starts off by first denouncing the use of the 'classical theory of laughter (Aristotles)' and the 'Three Theory' model with regards to their ability to properly categorize Roman thoughts about laughter. In particular she is stingy to scholars who deem Aristotle's theories of laughter (often too largely based on the lost mythic second book of Poetics) as being the one and only explanation of the Roman worlds thoughts on the subject. As she points out, even though Romans were somewhat influenced by Aristotle's idea's, much of the time (if not most) writers would simply have their own way of explaining this phenomenon. Like Pliny the Elder for example, who confidently assured his Roman friends that babies could not laugh until they were exactly 40 days old. Furthermore Aristotle himself is often contradictory and as confused as everyone else seems to be with relation to this infinitely complex field. After this Beard will go on to point out the general questions of laughter that have been expressed throughout the Roman world, before beginning to dwell on deeper examples/problems of understanding.

Make no mistake however, this book will transgress antiquities opinion on the matter. Beard will often cite authorities all through the ages in her many arguments that weave throughout, and it isn't even until the second half that more specific Roman discussion really begins to take off. This is a admirably brave effort and the academic scope of this read reminds me of Fernard Braudels Mediterranean attempts. The reading is dense but always captivating. Do not expect a light read because of the subject matter being dealt with. Beard will time and time again prove that even simply spotting a joke is tough work, and extrapolating its meaning with reference to the specificity of Roman culture is near impossible.

To classicists (although I am not one) I imagine this would be an extremely fascinating read, but to the rest of us this book is still an inviting and unpretentious glance into the immense world of a specific corner of Roman academia. Very interesting read, will definitely come back to this one in the future.

[Alex Pler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Por el título podría parecer un estudio ligero sobre el humor romano, pero Beard se lo toma muy en serio. Desentraña no solo lo difícil, casi imposible, de entender qué hacía reír a personas de otra cultura y otro tiempo, sino cómo reinterpretamos todo su legado para acomodarlo a nuestros intereses, y además lo hacemos a través de fuentes que han pasado un filtro y una distorsión. Muy riguroso, muy denso, mejor cuando la autora permite que la temática aligere el texto.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd previously heard Mary Beard interviewed on radio and had therefore picked up and read her book on Roman triumphs. This new title came as a gift from a Canadian bookseller friend.

If you're expecting to join in the hilarity of the ancients, I doubt that this book will do the trick. Only four of the jokes quoted within elicited anything approaching a chuckle from me. This, of course, raises the issue of the appropriation of meaning between distant cultures, a matter Beard treats at some length, both from the perspective of sociology and from that of the translator.

[Nefer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Normalmente DEVORO todo lo que escribe Mary Beard, pues es una de mis autoras favoritas. He aprendido muchísimo sobre la antigua Roma con ella y me gusta mucho su forma de escribir.
Pero este libro no: este libro me ha costado la vida terminarlo; se me ha hecho árido y pesado, y el vocabulario un poco pomposo.

[Harmony Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

The material, although interesting, is delivered in a long-winded and dry fashion. In particular, the first three chapters rhapsodising on what laughter is, could have been condensed or, in my opinion, omitted entirely.

[Otto · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just finished Beard's fascinating book. Full disclosure, I am writing a book on laughter and humor (l&h). This is an extant from a larger essay in which I take issue with Beard's view that a universal theory of l&h is possible:

Is laughter and humor a feature of human nature? It is, but there is little collaboration among scholars who maintain different perspectives on what about laughter makes us human. Philosophers since Plato have asked: Why do we laugh? What is humor? What are laughter’s functions? Is our species the only one that laughs? There are 3 repeatedly-noted laughter theories that offer distinct answers to the ‘why’ question. One, we laugh to express our personal superiority over the butt of the joke. This answer is associated with Aristotle, Hobbes, and the contemporary sociologist, Michael Billig. Two, we laugh in order to release some sort of internal pressure, as Herbert Spenser, Freud, and 20th c. positive psychologists continue to argue. Three, we laugh when incongruity of some sort is expressed. Kant may have been the inspiration for Francis Hutcheson, the 18th century Scot, to develop this idea. Contemporary linguists, notably Victor Raskin, have recast this insight into a grammar of joking. However, I would ask you to notice the complementarity of the triad: incongruity resolution is laughter’s cognitive trigger, superiority is laughter’s resulting social relations, and relief is laughter’s psychophysical effect. Thus this endless debate should be put to rest.

For their part, humanists focus on the humor of a historical context for a particular group. For example Stephen Halliwell, who worked for decades on a “cultural psychology” of the ancient Greeks, rejected “totalizing definitions” of laughter. He presented “sufficient complexity in their laughter as to be believable” (even as it is unfamiliar) “when compared to the fine distinctions we are accustomed to make in regard to our own contemporary practices” (Platter 2010). With similar goals historian Mary Beard has recently completed a study of Roman laughter. Sadly, Beard dismisses much of philosophical and social scientific work. To the debate whether laughter is a natural or a cultural phenomenon, she wrote:

“…Culture almost always trumps nature. Laughter has been a key marker of what we feel about other cultures, about our own past and our views of the progress of civilization… And that is why laughter is such a fertile, and hopefully funny, subject for the historian, simultaneously enriching and frustrating, eye-opening and opaque” (2014b, B8).

Beard’s readings of historical Roman laughter are subtle and illuminating, but her claim that laughter is a faculty of unfathomable fundamentals only reveals her personal predilection. It does not constitute an argument, because human laughter could have a single origin that has branched into various functions, or be comprised of convergent past behaviors. Beard disdainfully argues that “a universal theory of laughter” is impossible (2014a, 50), saying primate studies confuse the “literal” laughter of humans and the “metaphorical uses of ‘laughing’” in reference that to primate behavior (46). She thus rejects the possibility of pre-human antecedents to human laughter. She concludes, most uncritically, that nuance of scientific findings is of limited use for humanists.

Thus Beard's rejects a great deal of what I would use to argue for a universalist thesis of human laughter and humor. Her major thesis is that the one-liner was invented by the Romans, and that in our ability to understand the 265 jokes of the Philogenia "Laughter Lover" is due to their familiarity. This may be a circular claim, but I am still studying her work. It's a rich rewarding read.

[B. Rule · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a largely academic but entertaining account of laughter in Rome. It's very engaged with the secondary literature, often in a disputatious manner. Beard is also clearly in possession of a magisterial knowledge of primary source materials, and she hops around in time to marshal evidence to her points. She includes a decent survey and treatment on theories of laughter, but she remains agnostic about universalist accounts.

The reason this book is extremely my s#!t is that Beard traces in a critical and probing manner all of the ways that laughter serves to reinforce or break down relationships of power. She uses jokes and jests to explore the relationships between emperor and aristocrats, emperor and peasant, patron and parasite, men and women, philosophers and common man, orator and actor, etc. All of these are fascinating and multifaceted, as you would expect from an account framed through laughter (which is certainly not reducible to humor). I was especially taken by the excellent account of the anxieties of the orator, who walks the razor's edge between sparkling wit and low jester. The uncomfortable interplay of the political stage, where rhetoric leads to political glory, and the dramatic stage, where mime and bawdy humor signify the lowest ranks of society, is pretty fascinating.

Further, you get to hear a lot of great Roman jokes in the process! Some are head-scratchers, but there were several that elicited a chuckle or at least a murmur of appreciation. In addition, various interesting topics get included as asides. Who knew that Latin didn't really have a word for a "smile" distinct from a laugh, or that Latin has a solid half-dozen or more distinct terms for a joke or witticism, while Greek makes do with just a couple? The discussion of how Roman laughter differed from Greek was worth the price of admission alone.

This is a pretty quick read as it's broken up roughly along the lines of lectures Beard gave in Berkeley. Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in ancient Roman social and political structures, the ways that laughter, irony, and humor interact with those power and social structures, and people who like peering back in history to see how ancient peoples were different (and often surprisingly the same). Also for anyone who needs some cheesy jokes to recount to their patron in order to earn a free meal!

[Wing · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although forever meandering, unapologetically arcane, and wantonly digressive, this quaint monograph is ultimately profoundly illuminating and insightful. The first half of the book is all about methodology—which, in this case, means historiography. The major insight in this part of the book, I think, is that the investigation of the phenomenon we call laughter is best undertaken through history and anthropology rather than neuroscience, although the latter can be contributory. Even Beard herself subtly implies that this part of the book may be less interesting than the second half.

The second half dissects various classical sources (Cicero, Quintilian, etc.), and through them we contemplate major facets of Roman society and many deep philosophical questions, such as identity. The sociopolitical aspects of laughter and jokes are thoroughly analysed. I suspect those who are not experts in classical Roman (and Greek) literature—such as myself—may find many parts of the book almost inscrutable and tedious. Nevertheless, marching through all those difficult bits proves rewarding. The best parts, to me, are the last chapter on the Philogelos and the Afterword. A fascinating subject indeed.

[Susana Loriente · Rating 3 out of 5]

La risa es exclusiva del ser humano, como ya decía Aristóteles, y también un elemento cultural. A partir de ahí, Mary Beard analiza los diferentes vocablos que designan la risa en la antigua Roma, cita ejemplos de chistes romanos y explica el papel de juegos de palabras, mimos, bufones y oradores ingeniosos como Cicerón. Es interesante su reflexión sobre la risa asociada al poder (del emperador Cómodo, por ejemplo) y a la imitación.
El ensayo es complejo pero me ha resultado instructivo.

"Un lumbrera soñó que pisaba un clavo, así que se vendó el pie. Otro lumbrera le preguntó el motivo y, cuando lo supo, dijo: Nos merecemos que nos llamen idiotas. Por qué diantres te acostaste sin llevar el calzado puesto?"

[Jim Robles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an entertaining read with a great deal of historical detail. The Romans, in a sense (p. 209), "invented" the "joke."

This is just great! p. 8 "more than four hundred years earlier," seems to refer to from 161 BCE to 192 CE (p. 1) which I would think is 353 years, which, again, I would think is LESS than 400 years. Professor Beard was incredibly gracious and thanked me for my correction. My daughter disagrees, but I am now claiming that I have made a contribution to classical literature: check that box!

I wish that Professor Beard has eschewed her occasional use of the word "honestly." Since she uses "honestly" a few times, what should I infer elsewhere? By the way, I do not care for "the fact is" either: these are unnecessary words that weaken the message.

The ninety-first book I have finished this year.

p. 9. For the priests of the Great Mother, the so-called Galli, who lived in the temple precinct, were themselves eunuchs, reputedly self-castrated - . . . - with a sharpened flint.

That is religious commitment!

p. 65. As Bakhtin himself acknowledged, ancient accounts stress that the Saturnalia represented not so much an overturning of social distinctions but rather a return to a primitive world in which such distinctions did not yet exist.

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?" - John Ball (an English Lollard priest who took a prominent part in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381).

p. 68. So far as I have been able to discover, there is no culture in the world that claims to laugh more coarsely or more cruelly than its predecessors.

p. 74. So did the Romans smile? . . . "by and large, in our terms, no."

p. 106. In fact, most historians of Roman public life and public speaking would now regard Cicero's use of laughter both as a powerful means of attack and as an equally powerful mechanism for reinforcing, or constructing, social norms.

p. 110. In other words, what we have in this long discussion or oratorical laughter is a characteristically Roman cultural product: Roman practice and tradition, theorized by a Roman intellectual in dialogue with his Greek predecessors.

p. 118. It was various forms of bodily disruption that best guaranteed a laugh.

p. 121. A Roman located the responsibility for any deformity, regardless of its origin, solely in the person who bore that deformity.

p. 125. Cicero in fact was generally unperturbed by the lying and deception that joking could involve - as we can see . . . .

p. 146. . . . harping on that classic topic of a Roman joke - hair loss.

p. 154. Scurra, in other words, was a (negative) value judgement on the practices of laughter rather than a descriptor, a cultural constructor (a mirror) of the jocularity of the Roman elite.

p. 157. One thing that we almost entirely miss in Rome is the tradition of subversive female laughter - what we call giggling - that is a distinctive strand in modern Western culture and can be glimpsed as far back as Geoffrey Chaucer.

p. 164 - 165. . . . the bald ones . . . baldness as a surefire prompt to laughter . . .

p. 177. In the ancient world, to drink wine that was not mixed with water was usually the mark of the uncivilized or the bestial.

p. 178. The prompt for each of these peculiarly powerful forms of laughter is the blurring of the (alimentary) boundaries between the human being and the donkey:

p. 184. . . . there is a fine line between the person who makes you laugh and one you laugh at.

p. 185. In it we meet again one of the favorite figures of fun at Rome: the baldy (pp. 51, 132-33, 146).

p. 188. The Philogelos, in other words, was not a single authored work but a generic title for a set of texts with strong similarities but no fixed archetype or orthodoxy; . . . .

p. 195. Crucifixion, for example, does not have a big part in the modern comic repertoire.

p. 198-199, Yet repeatedly we find joke pointing to and playing with what we might call numerical tropes.

p. 199. Those uncertainties notably extend to personal identity. One deceptively simple question - "How do I know who I am?" - . . . .

p. 209. That is the sense in which we might conclude that it was indeed "the Romans" who invented "the joke."

p. 212. The prompts to laughter in the human brain may in some ways transcend cultural difference.

[Faiz Kermani · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. It's really an academic assessment of humour as a way of better understanding certain aspects of Roman society. I suppose we can only guess at what role humour really played (as sources are limited) but it's interesting to see all the theories. Where they were listed, I was quite amazed to see that there's the odd joke that remains funny after all this time. I wonder in the future what they'll think of humour from our era?

[Kara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite kinds of history books – the kind where the historian writing the book is ready to get in the ring and box it out with other historians over difference of opinions on historical theories. Fight for the knife!

I don’t think anyone can beat the Tudor historians for taking things to a personal level (although the Richard III historians debating did-he-or-didn’t-he come close) but here we get the great twist of Mary Beard trying to be above it all, merely reporting how all the other ancient Rome historians have criticized each other quite nastily over what may or may not have happened, or what something may or may not translate to.

Ironically, this means Beard comes off as the ancient Roman lady draped on a couch eating grapes as she watches the gladiators fight for her amusement, as if she has nothing to do with the fighting itself, rather than the instigator she is with all the little cutting remarks here and there about others’ use of primary sources and translations.

However, university-level political back biting aside, this is a great book both as an examination of the history of the Roman Empire through the lens of laughter and what the very act of laughing says about class structure, history, power dynamics, etc., as well as a larger debate on a human scale of what is the human sense of humor.

It is a dense book, a real slog of a read, make no mistake, but it is worth making your way through both for the jokes and the examination of what is universal and what is highly specific to time, place, and language. Stand up comics, animal performances, hangers-on sucking up, joke books - some of the material may have changed, but a lot of the framework is recognizable in modern comedy.


My favorite joke in the book:

Emperor Augustus to the look-a-like peasant: “Did your mother ever visit Rome?”

Peasant: “Nope – but my father did!”

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

It reads like a collection of lectures, which is how it started life. It can be repetitive and disjointed, but in the end the topic is so interesting (how do we reconstruct the sound of ancient laughter?) that Beard carries it off very well. As most of her work seems to do, this speaks to tropes in the modern world almost as much as the ancient. Not an easy read by any means, despite occasionally sounding off-handed and snarky (which mostly comes across as a forced departure from the tone of 75% of the book), but well worth it in the end.

[The Phoenix · Rating 2 out of 5]

I believe that I would have liked this book more if I was interested in Sociology. For me, there were parts that were very interesting, and some that weren't. I don't think that it takes away from the quality, as there's a lot of information regarding laughter from that time/area. I would recommend this book to someone who likes both history and sociology.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mary Beard is an iconic popular academic who I have a lot of time for when it comes to how she approaches ancient Roman history. Aside from being very personable and unafraid of being forthright in her views, whether they be focused on ancient history, modern feminism, Brexit or whatever, she has the intellectual integrity to state that our understanding of what may be historically 'true' about the Romans is highly suspect and very complicated. She doesn't disregard the idea that we can't find some kind of historical understanding of the ancient world, and she is at pains to posit some very detailed, well argued and deeply researched theses that may be seen to run contrary to her underpinning construct of ancient Roman historical inquiry. However, as she explains in the opening of this title, Beard goes out of her way to establish the complicated 'alien' experience of ancient Roman laughter and the associated social phenomena of that culture's humour.

From a lay person's perspective this book would be frustrating in that Beard makes plenty of highly technical arguments, at times formed on points of Greek or Latin translation, or on her own interpretation of the nexus between the available literary evidence and the associated documented history. Therefore someone who is coming to this book without some understanding of classical literature may struggle. Even those with a reasonable awareness of key writers and texts such as Cicero, Apuleius, 'The Satyricon' or Plautus will find Beard's complex account a challenge.

Having said that, there are some key points that Beard makes with reasonable force and quality academic research that strike the reader. Her discussion of the role of the mimus both as a cultural constructor of laughter and as someone to be laughed at is one such point. Beard also makes plenty of sense out of the miasma of differing Latin words for laughter and its synonyms, thus helping one understand that the Romans had a complex structure of linguistically accounting for this human response. The political power of laughter and humour within Republican and imperial society is also given plenty of attention, thus providing an historical perspective on how the Roman elites controlled their inferiors, or were perhaps subverted by those same people.

Generally speaking Beard's prose is readable, though it would not be easy to read for those outside her obvious audience (i.e. scholars, academics and other students of ancient history). The structure of 'Laughter in Ancient Rome' helps reinforce the strength of her overall exposition on the subject, and her research is exceedingly impressive.

If I could give this book 3.5 stars I would; to be honest my reticence in not giving it 4 stars is more because of my own inability to focus on Beard's text and comprehend all her arguments the way I wanted to. Perhaps on re-reading my evaluation would be more positive. I would certainly recommend the book to fans of Mary Beard, to serious ancient Roman scholars and to anyone interested in the social history of comedy.

[Ryan Denson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite the impressions that the cover and the subject matter may give, this book is a dense scholarly examination of laughter in the Roman world. Mary Beard, as with her other works, does an excellent job and researching and presenting the material. This book is divided into two parts. The first part deals with methodological issues of studying laughter as well as some general thoughts on the laughter for the ancient Greeks and Romans. Beard also presents the three main types of anthropological and sociological theories of laughter: the incongruity theory, the superiority theory, and the relief theory.

The reader will catch glimpses of the validity of each theory in the second part of the book, which consists of four thematic chapters. The first examines laughter in the context of oratory. The second looks at how laughter is intertwined with social hierarchies (superiority theory). The third focuses on humor about animals (incongruity theory). For instance, why did the Romans find monkeys by their very nature to be hilarious or burst out laughing at the sight of a donkey eating figs? The fourth and final chapter provides an analysis of the Philogelos (meaning, "Laughter Lover"), a (somewhat) extant jokebook from the 4th/5th century AD. Beard closes by musing on the possible deeper modes of thought that some jokes invite (relief theory). Overall, it is a highly informative and entertaining read that anyone interested in the ancient world would love.

It also wonderfully highlights the similarities and differences between modern culture and that of antiquity. As Beard points out in the introduction, a Roman historian of the third century AD, Cassius Dio, found himself a situation where he had to desperately avoid being seen laughing. Similarly, haven't we all had to suppress our laughter in some situation or event where we shouldn't be laughing? Though, for modern readers, that situation almost certainly wasn't the Roman emperor menacingly holding the head of a decapitated ostrich.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you just want the jokes - and really, some are quite good - read the last chapter.
That'd be a waste considering how well Mary Beard writes, keeping genuine scholarship readable and engaging with the layperson, something I've come to realise is a rare skill indeed, though not because genuine academics are bad writers, but because those typically trying to bring some historical, linguistic or psychological subject before a wider audience are quite poor at finding that tone. They are inevitably condescending or ideological, or both. There is something deeply dangerous about trying to present a complicated topic insofar as it appears as 'common sense', and Beard does not do this at all.

This book is adapted from a series of lectures Beard gave, and as such she does seem to repeat a small point once or twice that is probably less odd in the spoken form than as a text. I wonder if I might've found the same bits funny if I'd heard her deliver them - at least some aspects of our comic tastes differ in how she approaches delivering these jokes.

Oh, one last thing -- don't read this if you haven't, and plan to, read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. She spoils the ending in the first chapter here, pretty unnecessarily. It's a good book, so don't do that to yourself. Read that, then this.

[Chloe · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I've said before, it feels a bit weird to give a rating to a research paper or, in this case, a thesis. But this audiobook has been published/distributed widely by a non-University publisher, so I consider it fair game.
You absolutely need to go into it as "reading someone's thesis" though - it's not pop nonfiction that communicates ideas clearly and simply, it's not something one could use as easy reference except for your own work, academic or creative.

In fact it rather left me with the impression that Classics theses can be much like the works of those same classical philosophers they often study - they can be about scientific topics (like sociology in this case) but with no scientific basis at all, as long as these modern takes quibble about translations and make noise about the past being a foreign country we can't visit and therefore the culture is essentially unknowable, especially when it comes down to something as ephemeral as laughter. Which might be a bit harsh, but the first part of this book does take great care to point out that modern society doesn't know why we laugh or why jokes work, and while ancient scholars had some thoughts about the same whys, they didn't have any better idea either. And that trying to construct arguments around a 'lost work' that wasn't so great as to be reproduced in large parts anywhere is an exercise in failure. (I am convinced though, that Aristotle likely had a dud in that second book of Poetics, if it even existed.)

The second part is the part that concerns itself with presenting and analysing the evidence we do have from the ancient Romans. From this one could gather a picture of what the Romans favoured in terms of 'jokes' and humour, though Professor Beard does stress and refer back to the first part's emphasis on how we can't really know the past, especially when we only have the writing of well-to-do men to go off of. That being said, it left me with the impression that accomplished orators were less like modern TEDx speakers and more like very posh stand up comedians, and that the 'oh, you're so funny' kind of suck-up was a legitimate lifestyle. (Albeit one that was subject to ridicule.)
While Beard never clarifies in such modern terms, to my understanding the Romans liked (mostly verbal) mockery, sarcasm and observational comedy, maybe even satire. Definitely not slapstick (at least not in elevated society) and not innuendo for the sake of it. They liked to make fun of fools and those that were lesser; they were not fans of humour that 'punched up', though it is heartening that they departed from a 'better a friend lost than a joke left unsaid' attitude to one where tact was advised when making jokes about companions.

Beard finishes up by looking at the economics of laughter and jokes in Ancient Rome. This doesn't answer any of the questions or thoughts posed in the first section, but does bring her to the conclusion that the Romans were the first to make jokes a discreet item of their own; a commodity which could be bought, sold or traded and something on which people could make a living - whether that be by telling jokes or by laughing at them.

Lastly, my favourite classical 'joke' recounted is that of the lawyer whose name translates roughly to 'puppy' biting back at the quip "Why are you barking puppy dog?" with "Because I see a thief!" It comes from a part talking about how Romans viewed wit as something that was at least partly innate - which is well proved in this instance and well translated to modern tastes by Beard, especially as it also illustrates the divide between the modern and the classic, because who would name their child 'puppy' today?

[Bruin · Rating 3 out of 5]

tl;dr: if you've read a dozen or more books on Ancient Rome, and are looking for greater insight into the lighter side of Roman culture and daily life, this is well worth consideration. But if you're new to ancient Roman history, you should look elsewhere for now.

I've read most of professor Beard's books and enjoyed them all, including this one. However, this is a deep dive on a very narrow subject: laughter in Ancient Rome. This is best for those who are well acquainted with Roman history, and looking for greater insight into the lighter side of Roman life.

This will provide greater insight into the culture, literature, and personalities of Ancient Rome, along with fun or fascinating facts that are tangentially related.

However, those without a strong background in ancient Roman history will find it more difficult to appreciate and to follow. While professor Beard does provide context and background, some basic familiarity is assumed.

[Craig Dickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really interesting, very engagingly written for what's basically an academic investigation, and shed a lot of light on ancient Roman society from its unusual perspective.

The book discusses the difficulties in trying to engage in any history of laughter - if the differences between what make (for example) the French and the British laugh can be so large, what hope have we of understanding a vanished ancient civilisation? Despite the challenge, this book provides a thorough and enjoyable survey of what we can know, and what we can perhaps infer, about what made the ancient Romans crack up.

It was really interesting and I liked it. Not exactly a page-turning thriller but very worthwhile and highly enjoyable.

[Lupo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il libro è interessante ma molte pagine sono dedicate alle teorie del riso e alla discussione tra specialisti relative alle possibili interpretazione di questa o tal altra opera. Ciò rende il libro non sempre godibile dal lettore non specialista. Tra le altre questioni Beard cerca di convincere che gli aspetti culturali del riso sono almeno altrettanto importanti degli aspetti neurologici ma, senza entrare nel merito di una materia che non mi è nota, io propendo a pensare che la neurologia, o comunque la natura, sia un substrato sempre incancellabile. Un dettaglio, piccolo ma che salta all'occhio, è che Beard suggerisce che i Romani non sorridessero. Ridevano, certamente, ma non sorridevano. Lo fa con argomentazioni varie, soprattutto di ordine linguistico. Io non ci credo nemmeno un po'.

[Cade · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has 2 parts. According to the author, the second part is essentially the content of a series of lectures she delivered on this subject. That part is interesting and enjoyable. The author does a good job when exegeting specific examples of humor in classical texts. The first part of the book is the author's wide-ranging pontificating on the "meaning" of laughter. This is self-indulgent and pretentious but not actually insightful. It reads like the conversations of pretentious undergraduates trying to impress each other with their intellectualism by competing to ask the most "profound" question, defined as the most grandiosely ambiguous and thus least actually meaningful.

My advice to someone picking up this book would be to read just the second half.

[Il Lettore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un ottimo saggio di storia, scritto con leggerezza - ma non troppa - risultato di studi e di preparazione di lezioni universitarie della professoressa che all'estero è una delle migliori storiche romane riconosciute dopo i nostri impareggiabili Alberto Angela e padre.
Ben scritto, fluido, poche volte noioso, affronta il tema del riso e della risata così come veniva vista e studiata ai tempi dei romani.
Ottimo per studiare qualcosa di Roma antica che non sia legato per forza di cose alla sua tradizione guerresca e ai grandi condottieri.

[Andrés Zelada · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un interesante ensayo sobre la risa en Roma. ¿Qué hacía reírse a los romanos? ¿Qué función desempeñaba la risa entre ellos? ¿Qué papel tenía el chiste? ¿Qué diferencias hay entre un orador y un mimo callejero? ¿Podemos delimitar la risa griega y la romana? ¿Qué reflexionaban sobre la risa?

Es un poco desesperante porque plantea más preguntas que respuestas, pero lo avisa en el prólogo, así que no puedo sentirme engañado. Además, ante la ausencia de las fuentes, muchas veces no queda otra que encogerse de hombros y acotar el interrogante hasta donde se pueda.

[Sally Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not my fave of her books, but still worth reading. Some of the jokes are still darn funny today.

Not Prof. Beard's fault but this is another case where I wish Amazon/whatever gave you the number of pages in the text proper instead of counting the bibliography, the endnotes, index, etc. It's a great disappointment in much of the nonfiction I buy. It's like I get cheated out of pages of content that I thought I was getting.

Minor pet peeve, sorry to ramble. Read the book anyway, but not at full price.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

a donkey: [eats a fig and drinks unmixed wine]

ancient romans: 😅😂🤣😭💀

this was super interesting! i obviously don't have any sort of qualifications in classics so a good bit of this went over my head but even so it was pretty approachable for the average joe. mary beard explains things v well (although she's fairly obsessed with the phrase "bon mot". give it a rest babe). i'll always take the chance to learn more about what makes people from the past similar to us. we all laugh at silly jokes! and yk what? some of those jokes ARE funny

[Pallas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought it would be more about humor in ancient Rome but it went a lot deeper than that. I don’t know much about the time or era and I’m sure it’s more interesting if you are more familiar with the times and people mentioned.

It’s also not written in a funny and entertaining way like some none fiction but is of the dryer variety.
I did like it because it made me think of why we laugh and how humor in many ways is thought, cultural and very individual. But I’m sure the subject could be interesting and funny at the same time, not really happening here.

3,5 rounding up.

[Rob Roy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum" type of book. It is a schollarly review of what laughter is, and how it was displayed and used in Ancient Rome. Yes, there are jokes in the book, but only a few. What I found fasinating was that culture affects what we laugh at. The book includes one crusifiction joke. If you are a classist, or interested in the culture of Ancient Rome, then do pick up this volume. If you are looking for a fun read, look elsewhere.