That contempt and dishonor are closely related has been shown not only in recent discussions of the subject, but also in Aristotle's investigation of emotions in the judiciary. In this paper, I will discuss the ways in which the ancient Greeks—and, in particular, the polis of Athens—institutionalized what Bell calls “apt contempt” (i.e., contempt as a response to actual and serious faults of character which stems from the contemnor's concern for the values at stake) through the legal penalty of atimia (...) (“dishonor”). Not only does Athenian evidence prove Bell's point that contempt can be “apt”—it also represents an early case study of a community that formalized such “apt” contempt in law and in the formal enactment of collectively approved social norms. And yet, the Greeks were also aware of the potential ambivalence of notions such as “contempt” and “dishonor.” This ambivalence is likely to have been one of the factors that catalyzed a differentiation, within the semantic field of atimia, between “dishonoring” ( atiman/ atimoun) and “disrespecting” ( atimazein)—between “apt” and “inapt” contempt. (shrink)

An introduction to a collection of nine papers on contempt, bringing contemporary philosophical approaches to the phenomenon into relation with its construction and presentation in the four classical cultures of China, Greece, India, and Rome. The introduction offers a brief summary of the papers and places the issues that they explore in the wider research context of the historical and cross-cultural study of emotion.

This article offers a new interpretation of the Athenian institution of ostracism and explores its significance for our understanding of democratic politics. A popular scholarly trend interprets ostracism as an instrument for pursuing conflict among aristocratic politicians, in accordance with a view of Athenian democracy as dominated by a restricted elite competing for power and prestige. This article aims to reassess this picture by investigating ostracism in the light of recent studies of honour, which have stressed honour's potential for balancing (...) competition and cooperation within communities. By using the ostracism of Themistocles as a case study, it argues that ostracism was a manifestation of an institutionalized concern for honour in Athenian democracy. On the one hand, ostracism could punish politically active citizens who, in excessively enhancing their own honour, failed to respect democratic equality. On the other, it could be employed for tackling shameful behaviour which placed the agent below the community's standards of honour. The article then sets ostracism against Athens’ broader institutional framework and argues that Athenian democracy was not so much concerned with policing intra-elite conflict as much as it was designed to foster a balance between competitive and cooperative values and ensure broad participation in the political domain. (shrink)