Tiberius The Resentful Caesar by Gregorio Maranon

[Narukami]

Found this book at a good price in a used book store here in Burbank. Amazon has no real information about this volume so I turn to the Group Mind of the Forum.

It looks interesting (forward by Ronald Syme) but I am wondering if it stands up to scrutiny.

Is anyone familiar with this book and if so any opinions, cautions, or reviews?

Thanks.

:wink:

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

Is anyone familiar with this book and if so any opinions, cautions, or reviews?

I have not read it; in dubio pro Barbara, I'd say.

[D B Campbell]

Is anyone familiar with this book and if so any opinions, cautions, or reviews?

Apparently translated from the Spanish in 1952 as Tiberius: Geschichte eines Ressentiments, then in English as Tiberius: A Study in Resentment (1956), which was re-issued in the US under the title Tiberius: The Resentful Caesar (1957) ... which is presumably the one that you have, David.

P.G. Walsh, a previous Professor of Humanities at Glasgow University, called it "a highly diverting and readable book which offers a novel approach to this fascinating period", but noted that it cannot avoid being a hostile witness (being based upon hostile primary sources). Dr Marañon appears to be a psychiatrist, rather than an ancient historian, so he probably brings interesting insights. Let us know what you think!

[Narukami]

Thanks for the info DB, very interesting.

At the moment I'm am reading Michael Grant's Cleopatra, but Tiberius will be next and I will let you know what I think.

And Jona, I have added Ms. Levick's book to my Amazon list .

Thanks to you both.

:wink:

Narukami

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

Dr Marañon appears to be a psychiatrist, rather than an ancient historian, so he probably brings interesting insights.

Since psychiatrists have long since been proven to be 'quacks' and the theories of Freud,Jung et al about as scientific as palm-reading or witchcraft, I very much doubt it. All the evidence has long since demonstrated that pscho-analytic techniques are completely worthless ( and, no, Duncan, that is NOT merely my opinion - but proven, scientific fact !) :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

D. Campbell wrote:

Dr Marañon appears to be a psychiatrist, rather than an ancient historian, so he probably brings interesting insights.

Since psychiatrists have long since been proven to be 'quacks' and the theories of Freud,Jung et al about as scientific as palm-reading or witchcraft, I very much doubt it. All the evidence has long since demonstrated that pscho-analytic techniques are completely worthless ( and, no, Duncan, that is NOT merely my opinion - but proven, scientific fact !) :wink:

I don't think psychiatrists are quacks, but I do think that writing history books is best left to professional historians. I think Dr Marañon would not allow amateur psychiatrists to take care of his patients.

[Paullus Scipio]

Jona wrote:

I don't think psychiatrists are quacks, but I do think that writing history books is best left to professional historians. I think Dr Marañon would not allow amateur psychiatrists to take care of his patients.

Have you actually had to study or look at psychiatry in any detail, Jona? I have, in the context of consulting them as expert witnesses in legal trials......and very few lawyers would dream of calling a psychiatrist as an expert witness nowadays - they simply have little/no credibility, and to call one as an expert witness at a trial would be to set up an easy target for the other side ( it is easy however to understand why psychiatry has a grasp on the public mind.....despite belief in its efficacy being irrational).

Take the well-known ink-blot 'Rohrshach' test as a simple example. It is no better than looking at tea-leaves in a cup in establishing character traits.( see e.g. Chapman L.J. and J.P. "Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of of valid psychodiagnostic signs "Journal of Abnormal Psychology" 1969, pp271-280, confirmed many times since - note the date, and that there are some who still use these tests !)

As statistical studies have shown, it would not matter one whit to the recovery rates of the 'patients' , whether they were treated by Dr Maranon, or 'amateurs'. :lol:

If you wanted to extend your 'urban myth/common mistakes' to the modern world, psychiatry would be a prime ( and all too easy) target.

[Jona Lendering]

As statistical studies have shown, it would not matter one whit to the recovery rates of the 'patients' , whether they were treated by Dr Maranon, or 'amateurs'.

I know, and I agree. My point is, however, that we should not blame Dr Maranon for being a psychiatrist, but for not being a historian. If you're not qualified, you must not write about a subject. (At the same time, I am aware that most ancient historians are insufficiently educated too.)

[D B Campbell]

If you're not qualified, you must not write about a subject. (At the same time, I am aware that most ancient historians are insufficiently educated too.)

Sadly true. But I think that modern medical analysis of ancient texts can often be illuminating. I seem to recall a medical diagnosis of Herod the Great's death that proved rather interesting.

I have not read Dr Marañon's book, but I believe his fundamental weakness was in accepting the opinions of the anti-Tiberian sources as if they were bona fide medical descriptions.