Much interesting work remains to be done in defining what constitutes Roman bodies and the ways in which they interrelate with one another. The best single resource for examining the uses of the body in Rome remains Sittl 1890. Although limited in its analysis, and tending to view Greek and Roman understandings of gesture from all periods as monolithic, this work remains an impressive achievement and an indispensable starting point for examining both the textual and visual evidence. De Jorio [1832] 2000, a pathbreaking study that employs comparative evidence to analyze ancient gesture, is still worth consulting on specific issues. For art, Brilliant 1963 provides the most complete discussion of the particularly Roman ways that the body could be represented visually, covering a much wider range of material and subject matter than its subtitle would suggest. Barton 2001 quotes extensively from the ancient sources suggestive remarks that illuminate the peculiar relationship that Romans had with their bodies; for the head in particular, see Richlin 1999. Corbeill 2004 uses cases studies of selected gestural phenomena to explore the links that Romans perceived between their bodies and the external world. For physiognomic writers, Evans 1969 provides the best overview and Gleason 1995, although covering the Second Sophistic, offers an innovative approach to these texts that has been fruitfully applied by scholars to texts from the Republic.
By exploiting remarks on oratorical delivery found in rhetorical handbooks (especially Quint. Inst. 11.3, for which see Maier-Eichhorn 1989 [commentary]; Graf 1991), several recent studies have examined the role of gesture in public oratory of the late Republic and early Empire. Aldrete 1999 analyzes how the speaker used body and voice in interacting with his audience, while Gunderson 2000 explores the interrelationship between rhetoric and masculinity. Hall and Bond 2002 (with an accompanying video) use primary sources to reconstruct how Cicero may have delivered specific passages of his oratory. Of special interest in determining the social and political significance of oratorical gesture is a series of articles by David (in particular 1980 and 1983a), who speculates on how historical conditions determined specific styles of oratorical deportment, in particular that of the non-elite public speaker at Rome.
The abundant recent scholarship on ancient sexuality has had a major impact on approaches to the Roman body. I restrict mention to those works in English that have the most relevance to my own limited discussion. The work of Amy Richlin (see especially 1983 and 1993) is always provocative and especially sensitive to issues of gender. Edwards 1993: 63-97 discusses reasons why discourses on sex are consistently intertwined with other forms of public discourse. Hallett and Skinner 1997 contains a useful collection of material covering many aspects of Roman sexuality; see also Fredrick 2002b. Williams 1999 is the most convenient resource for assessing the meanings of Roman masculinity, male homoeroticism, and the ways in which these behaviors are marked in the human body. Visual material illustrating attitudes toward sexuality and sexual behavior is amply documented in Clarke 1998.
World History
