Preamble: the meanings of humanitas
The meaning of humanitas is dogged by a controversy that troubled the ancients. The antiquarian Aulus Gellius, writing in the second half of the second century AD, puts it as follows:
Correct Latin speakers do not give humanitas the meaning that it is commonly thought to have, namely what the Greeks call philanthropia, which is a sort of correctness and goodwill towards all men.
Latin purists give humanitas approximately the force of the Greek paideia, which we know as education and training in the liberal arts. Those who pursue these goals are essentially human, for the cultivation of this kind of knowledge and training has been given to man alone, therefore it is called humanitas.(Cell. NA 13.17.1)
Gellius has confused cause and effect. Paideia, training and education, is as important to humanitas as it was to philanthropia. It promotes a mindset, a behavioural pattern that distinguishes civilised man from savages and beasts, a pattern that predisposes him against committing acts of brutality. But paideia itself is not that mindset. That role is (largely) filled by philanthropia/humanitas. It can no doubt be claimed that Gellius’ idea still enjoys some currency, for a liberal education is still said to be �in the humanities’. But modern lexicographers do not hesitate to credit humanitas with similar values to those credited to philanthropia. According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, humanitas covers �human nature or character; the quality distinguishing civilised man from savages or beasts; civilisation, culture; humane character, kindness, human feeling’. And the adjective humanus embraces �human (both absolutely and as distinct from the divine or the animal); proper to man; characteristic of human beings; civilised, cultured, cultivated; morally worthy of humanity; kindly, considerate; befitting the dignity of man; merciful, indulgent’.1
In order, however, to understand human rights on the Roman scene it is necessary to probe deeper. In the first place, a large area has to be identified not by any particular label, but by its content.
Nevertheless phraseology is important and calls for careful attention. As already observed, various values forming part of humanitas are often identified by separate labels. The most important is dementia. Also as already observed, ius humanum provides an almost exact terminological equivalent for the modern �human rights’; the theme will be developed in our next chapter. Another value of even greater importance is maiestas populi Romani, �the greaterness of the Roman people’. That, too, will be explored in our next chapter, and thereafter in a number of places.The duty to conserve maiestas populi Romani involved the use of both the carrot and the stick, of morality and severity. As such it is almost the mirror-image of the special perception of humanitas to which the more specific label of humanitas Romana has been given. Humanitas Romana is seen as an amalgam of Greek philanthropia and the austere traditional values making up Roman virtus. Humanitas Romana is thought to epitomise the entire concept of humanitas as perceived and practised by the Romans. The formation and significance of this concept are the subject of the present chapter.
More on the topic Preamble: the meanings of humanitas:
- Different meanings of 'legal principle'
- Preamble
- Preamble
- Preamble
- Preamble
- Preamble: the meaning of philanthropia
- Preamble
- The concept of humanitas Romana
- The Scipionic age: humanitas and maiestas
- Humanitas and clementia: Augustus and Tiberius
- Humanitas and the law
- Humanitas and punishment: exile
- Humanitas Romana: a first appraisal
- Humanitas and clementia: Seneca
- Primacy in humanitas: rival contenders
- Humanitas and clementia: Flavians, Antonines, Severans
- HUMANITAS ROMANA
- THE NEW IMAGE OF HUMANITAS: PART TWO
- THE NEW IMAGE OF HUMANITAS: PART ONE
- Maiestas, morality and humanitas