ASCLEPIADES

Probably the Gospels are a not very reliable source for the study of Roman law. For example, the Roman governor's release of a prisoner on the crowd's choice (ie Barabbas, in Mark 15:6; Matthew 27:15; Luke 23:17 and John 18:39) is, as far as I understand, simply nonsense. The common interpretation that I have seen about the "Jewish autonomy" in the Gospels is the double goal (by Pauline influence) of relieving the Romans from the blame of Jesus' death (for acceptance and conversion purposes) and, consequently, giving it to the Jews (as a punishment for not recognizing the coming of the Messiah)..

Salve! If Augustus had died before or around 19 BC (the third settlement), we would probably remember him in a very similar way to Sulla.

I totally disagree. Josephus was a greater patriot than any Zealot, and his scholarship was an expression of this patriotism. I must confess this is a first for me. You mean a Roman or a Jewish patriot? If it's the second, please define the concept. I would say that in ambiguous situations wisdom is a prerequisite for ethical behavior. The twin notions that morality is an expression of the heart and not the brain and thus that any fool can attain goodness is pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo--an opium for the witless. A rock has no ethical behaviour; is hard to disagree. A minimum of cognoscitive level is certainly a prerequisite for ethical behaviour in any direction. Anyway, I was not exploring the relationship between wisdom and ethics; I simply believe you can and should analyze both personality traits separately when you study any character. I think Leni Riefenstahl was a good filmmaker, and that condition is independent of the ethical considerations of her Nazi propaganda.

Looking closely, I think the Lex Maria Tabellaria of 119 BC was contested by the Senate and thus never enforced. (Plutarch, Parallel lives, Marius, Ch. IV, sec. II): "...whereupon Cotta the consul opposed him and persuaded the senate to contest the law, and to summon Marius before it to explain his procedure. The senate voted to do this..." Maybe this fact would merit a note on your list. Good eye, but I think you stopped reading a bit too soon The same passage, Plut. Mar. 4.3 continues: No question at all that the Senate opposed it, but like so many other laws, this was a plebiscitum. It's rare that any law was passed without opposition by somebody. Gratiam habeo for your kind explanation.

The Lex Maria was a Plebiscitum and was therefore ratified by the people. It was opposed by the senate, not rejected. (Per the post in the Legal Chronology thread.) Touche. Gratiam habeo.

Salve! The paradox of historic knowledge (and of scientific knowledge in general, BTW) is that any answer always generate more new questions, commonly in an exponential progression. Then, the relatively abundant sources about ancient Rome generate literally myriads of questions. Conversely, in the case of other less lucky (for us) populations, the only question that you can validly elicit is if they ever existed at all.

Salve! And here is a dramatic example.

Salve! Here comes the abstract of a recent review: (The Antonine plague by C. Haas, Bull Acad Natl Med. 2006 Apr-May; vol. 190(n. 4-5):Pg. 1093-8. In french) (Reference at the NCBI) "During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Empire was struck by a long and destructive epidemic. It began in Mesopotamia in late AD 165 or early AD 166 during Verus' Parthian campaign, and quickly spread to Rome. It lasted at least until the death of Marcus Aurelius in AD 180 and likely into the early part of Commodus' reign. Its victims were "innumerable". Galen had first-hand knowledge of the disease. He was in Rome when the plague reached the city in AD 166. He was also present during an outbreak among troops stationed at Aquileia during the winter of AD 168-169. His references to the plague are scattered and brief but enough information is available to firmly identify the plague as smallpox. His description of the exanthema is fairly typical of the smallpox rash, particularly in the hemorrhagic phase of the disease." I hope this may be useful.

Salve! "Flavius" Josephus is good evidence that you can simultaneously be an extraordinary scholar and a treachorous scoundrel, something like mixing Polybius and Quisling. Wisdom and ethics should never be mixed in the same flask for their analysis. BTW, I really enjoyed this film and I entirely agree with G. J. Goldberg.

Salve, guys & Ladies! All periods considered, Constantinople. A metropolis specifically designed to be Caput Novis Mundi is not everyday's stuff (nothing to do with Hellenic Byzantium).

Looking closely, I think the Lex Maria Tabellaria of 119 BC was contested by the Senate and thus never enforced. (Plutarch, Parallel lives, Marius, Ch. IV, sec. II): "...whereupon Cotta the consul opposed him and persuaded the senate to contest the law, and to summon Marius before it to explain his procedure. The senate voted to do this..." Maybe this fact would merit a note on your list. Once again, congratulations. Your list has proven to be an extremely valuable tool.

In terms of its outcome, coercion is a different matter--if voters are coerced in some way (e.g., prevented from attending the election), it has a huge effect on the outcome of the election. This is why I think that political violence is a much more serious issue than bribery (given a secret ballot, that is). I'm really sorry I don't have a translation of Cicero De Legibus III, XVII; but we can always rely on PP (your UNRV's link): "119 (BC) Lex Maria Tabellaria By tribune C. Marius, a voting law that restricted the size of passages to ballot boxes probably in order to reduce corruption/bribery and insure free voting." (sic: "Pontes etiam lex Maria fecit angustos."). Smith's Dictionary adds: "it contained a clause for making the pontes narrower which led into the septa or inclosures where the people voted; but as its object seems to have been to prevent intimidation on the part of the nobles, it was strongly opposed by the senate." Even if I have access only to the first page, A Lintott's Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic may help us not only by analyzing the status of bribery on Roman politics, but also with the meaning of ambitus, related both to ambitio and, most significantly, to "ambire" ("to go around", a relative of English "Ambulate"). Therefore, ambitus apparently implies walking around and among the voters while they were voting, with the obvious resultant compromise of secrecy. That's why the Lex Maria was rejected and so fiercely opposed by the aristocrats. Roman electoral bribery and coertion were most probably within a continuum, both sides of the same coin: Ambitus.

If you look at the passage quoted above, it becomes clear--they ejected members where Cato's support was most probable, which was in the higher classes. The strategy would be analogous to throwing out the votes of New Yorkers in a presidential election between a senator from New York and a representative from Texas. Note too that in later elections where bribery was no less rampant but where force was not used, Cato succeeded in winning the praetorship. You said it : probable. You can never be sure of each vote. Exactly the same problem as with the bribes, as long as the vote was secret. Lex Maria was proposed because this was not always the case, and it was rejected to preserve the same situation. Your second aseveration is more interesting to me, because Cato was not an isolated case; in fact, it was very common that defeated candidates won the inmediately subsequent election. I have no good explanation for that and I would like to know your opinion.

Now that's the question that should be asked. If the answer is that you couldn't buy votes even if you wanted to, why did candidates practice bribery and why were there attempts to prohibit it? My guess is that bribery--like most ritualistic behavior--was partly based on superstition, partly based on tradition, and partly based on symbolism. But there is an important difference between a purely symbolic value and a real value. A purely symbolic value can be achieved by other means, whereas a real value cannot by faked. That is, a person could make up for his refusal to bribe by winning a war or throwing great games or performing other services for their constituents; in contrast, an incremental increase in bribes (say, handing out 100 sesterces instead of 85) wouldn't turn a Verres into a Cato. Once the symbolic gesture has been made, it doesn't do any greater good to ramp it up, whereas real values can be increased to an arbitrary extent. Indeed, if electoral bribery is a pointless ritual, it's a very persistent one, practiced by many people who would qualify as experts on that area. You may have a valid point, really. But I don't think you can claim it as a fact. You have still to prove it. Excuse me if I consider the possibility that some ancient and modern politicians may know what they were/are talking about. Besides, probably the concept of ambitus goes beyond our concept of bribery, including also other concepts like voters interference and coertion. For example, the Commonwealth Electoral Act's (Australia) definition of bribery: "Without limiting the effect of the general words in the preceding section,

Ridiculous. By this reasoning, we would have to assume that ritual sacrifices had an real effect on agriculture from the mere fact that knowledgeable farmers made such sacrifices. Obviously, this is a silly inference. Then, we would also have to assume that killing enemies on battles had an real effect on war from the mere fact that knowledgeable warriors made such killings. Obviously, this is a not so silly inference. I think you are familiar with the Mertz-Hsieh Definitions of Fallacies: "faulty analogy: assuming either that properties shared between two situations or existents will continue to be found indefinitely or that shared properties will be found in very disparate situations or existents". Clearly, it's easy to find today's empirical evidence that ancient Rome's style sacrifices had no real effect on agriculture. Clearly, it's not so easy to find today's empirical evidence that electoral bribery has no real effect on the electoral results. That would explain why today most democracies and some dictatorships enforce laws against it (and not for agricultural sacrifices). Here comes a review by DA Phillips od Alexander Yakobson, Elections and Electioneering in Rome: A Study in the Political System of the Late Republic. (1999): "Popular participation in the centuriate assembly,"... the second chapter ... The prevalence of bribery speaks to the importance of the vote of non-wealthy individuals. "If massive electoral bribery is hard to account for in an 'oligarchic assembly', should we not conclude that the assembly was less oligarchic than is often thought, rather than doubt the testimony of the sources?" (p.25). In addition to corrupt practices, legitimate gifts (largitiones) are also commonly used to win popular support. Cicero's Pro Murena provides detailed evidence, and the author also refers to the importance of the office of aedile as a step on the cursus honorum for ambitious politicians." You can never insult my intelligence for explaining something to me.

The only example I was able to find on the very extensive list by PP predting the lex Gabinia Tabellaria is the Lex Cornelia et Baebia de Ambitu of 181BC (573 AUC), which incapacitated those who were convicted of ambitus from being candidates for ten years. The Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities adds a couple more, the anonymous first one from 432 BC ( 322 AUC ) which anyone to whiten his toga when he appeared as a candidate, and the Lex Poetelia of 358 BC (396 AUC ) which forbade candi

The second example--regarding Vatinius and Cato--doesn't show that bribery made a difference. According to the passage you cite, Cato's supporters were physically ejected from the Campus Martius, thereby preventing them from voting for him. Physically ejecting voters from the field must have had an effect. What reason is there to think that bribery had any additional effect? Given that there was no way to check who complied with the bribe, there was no incentive for the voter to fill his end of the deal and no evidence that they ever did. The evidence lies in the mere fact that Pompey, Crassus and Vatinius gave such bribery (at least two times), if we suppose they had any knowledge of Roman politics to begin with. If bribery hadn't any additional effect, what reason was there to give it in the first place? Clearly, the physical ejection of Cato's supporters wasn't considered enough. Even more, how were Cato's enemies able to determine who to eject, if the ballot was secret, according to the lex Gabinia Tabellaria?

That's quite right indeed. In fact, the coin's date would only prove the travel wasn't made before 1597; the ship could have landed any time after that.

Salve, C! Congratulations, your eyes are not deceiving you. In fact, I think there is also footwear on other pics. From my vast ignorance: why is the gladiator's footwear so unexpected?

I simply wasn't aware of that. Can you mention previous examples of anti-bribery laws and alternative purposes for the lex Gabinia Tabellaria? The first passage has two quotations: 1. The aborted Lex Maria trying to lessen the power of the nobles to interfere the elections long after 138 BC. 2. The praetor Marius facing a serious bribery accusation. The second passage is an example where L. Candidatus Unscrupulus' (Vatinius') bribery made a difference.

Salve! These are the critical verses quoted by S. Grainger on his 1999's paper about Garum (Pertinax's link), where the production of fish condiments is described in some detail, ie. how juices and fluids are extracted and the three kinds of sauce that can be created. Sorry, but I found no translation. The source is Manilius' Astronomica (I Century AD), Liber V, lines 670 to 681, from the Latin Library: "illa datis melior, sucis pars illa retentis. hinc sanies pretiosa fluit floremque cruoris evomit ex mixto gustum sale temperat oris; illa putris turbae strages confunditur omnis permiscetque suas alterna in damna figuras communemque cibis usum sucumque ministrat. aut, cum caeruleo stetit ipsa simillima ponto squamigerum nubes turbaque immobilis haeret, excipitur vasta circum vallata sagena ingentisque lacus et Bacchi dolia complet umorisque vomit socias per mutua dotes et fluit in liquidam tabem resoluta medullas." Grainger tell us : "Fish are brought on to the beach whole and cut up The precious fluid, literally 'flower of the gore' is saved and mixed with salt. He does not say that fermentation takes place but is surely must, before the finished product 'soothes the sense of taste' ... 'From the one body are put two different purposes....one kind is better with its juices drained and another with them kept in'. He then says that a separate mass of dead fish, presumably mixed with salt and fermented, sinks to the bottom and dissolves to provide a 'soft complement to foods' He appears to be talking about the fish paste called allec with was hardly ever added to food during cooking but served separately. There would have been a liquid brine at the top of this paste which was itself a fish sauce of some kind. We then here about another kind of process where vast numbers of small fish are dredged up in a net and turned into a large wine jar called a dolia.

Salve! I found the page Hindu and Celtic Culture Are One on the web. The first problem with this website is that it is not strictly historical; in fact, it runs by the auto-denomination of "Esotheric Theological Seminary" (seriously). As far as I have seen, I think it's a good example of that kind of stuff Ursus was warning us about.

A non-Roman exception: The 352 BC Battle of Thermopylae was the blocking of the pass during the III Sacred War (356 BC- 346 BC, fought between Thebes and Phocis for the control of Delphi), by the allied Phocians and Athenians against Philip II of Macedon. The Phocian commander Phayllus managed to keep Philip out; it was one of the few defeats (or at least checks) of Philip.

Gratiam habeo for the link, but I can't access it even after filling up the registering form. Maybe you can upload at least the abstract... In any case, thanks in advance!