This chapter examines Varro’s depictions of teasing and banter in his dialogue De Re Rustica, with particular reference to issues of im/politeness. In many cases, this banter involves some kind of provocation of the addressee, and so risks being construed as impolite. In most instances, however, the witty phrasing conveys a playful intent, which ensures that the remark does not cause offence. The end result is usually heightened rapport among the participants. In several cases Varro’s teasing involves ‘collaborative’ banter, in which both participants contribute to the construction of a playful conceit. In other instances, however, the teasing quips are one-sided, with no response reported. In such cases the emphasis seems to be on the display of quick-witted inventiveness for its own sake. This energetic interaction differs from the highly conventionalized language of social negotiation typically used by the Roman elite. Indeed, it is significant that Cicero’s real-life epistolary relationship with Varro was marked by a degree of formality that eschewed the use of banter. In this respect, the right to tease was one extended only to a privileged sub-set of personal acquaintances

This chapter examines friendship terms (e.g. phile, beltiste, daimonie) in Plato in the light of Brown and Levinson’s face-threat theory of politeness. It argues that every friendship term in Plato is polite redress for a specific face-threatening act, and aims to explain not only their general significance but also why they occur exactly when they do. The chapter examines Phaedrus in detail in order to show how friendship terms are associated with particular face-threatening acts, and supports the argument with a selection of passages from other dialogues. About 240 out of the 457 friendship terms in the corpus are either discussed in detail or explicitly linked to a specific face-threatening act, and the remaining examples should be readily intelligible in the light of this. Friendship terms are formally polite, in keeping with Socrates’ persona as represented in the dialogues, but also serve to emphasize face-threatening acts such as criticism and refutation. It is notable that there are no friendship terms in dialogues, or sections of dialogues, where overt face threat is avoided (e.g. the conversation with Gorgias in Gorgias).

Shortly before the presidential election, the Washington Post released a videotape from 2005 in which Donald Trump described “grabbing [women] by the pussy.” Trump dismissed the exchange as “locker-room banter,” meaning a non-serious, not necessarily truthful and thus essentially harmless exchange of a kind that is common when men talk among themselves. This chapter analyzes this type of “banter,” among (presumptively) heterosexual men talking about sex, as a ritualized social practice which helps to maintain and reproduce a “fratriarchal” form of structural male dominance. The chapter also considers what the videotape adds to our understanding of Trump’s communication style and his speaking persona, along lines of class and masculinity. Vulgarity and “lewdness” are among the linguistic resources the wealthy Trump has deployed in his bid to be seen by less privileged Americans, especially disaffected White working-class men, as a “man of the people.” While the language he used on the tape may have damaged his prospects with some voters, it made him seem more appealing to others.