M. Porcius Cato

If the 'law of nations' was "the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization", it seems worthwhile to discover in detail what exactly was bequeathed to us. This is worth following up.

In the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I agree. Judging by outside evidence, however, John is much more reliable about historically verifiable matters than the other three, and since the four narratives were each presented as a coherent whole, it's not possible to pick and choose from each of the books. In any case, rules of thumb like "the gospels were meant to portray the Romans in a favorable light" don't tell us anything about historical accuracy, and the books of the Bible (as well as Josephus) occasionally provide unique information that is (at least in principle) verifiable. Finally, I'd much prefer to rely on John's record of what the Romans actually did than to rely on worthless generalities like "the Romans did whatever they wanted on a case-by-case basis".

Nope, nope: I am trying to disprove a positive (that bribery has any effect on the election result). OK, I see where you're coming from. In that case, the critical evidence comes from whether there were electoral victories of non-bribers over bribers (or light bribers over heavy bribers).

Hire an agent. The agent will pay precinct captains, who will know the individual voters and will check on their reliability to vote as directed. For best results, hire an agent that doesn't also work for your competition. When a voter gets a bribe from both sides, the results tend to be ... democratic.

I totally disagree. Josephus was a greater patriot than any Zealot, and his scholarship was an expression of this patriotism. 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.

No mental institutions--unless you count the imperial palace. In general, the systematic categorization and diagnosis of mental illness is an achievement of the late 20th century.

CYRANO DE BERGERAC Kevin Kline is the lovelorn poet and swordsman with the big schnoz from Edmond Rostand

This seems like a reasonable conjecture, but where it gets tricky is in the treatment of traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea. There were at least three Roman colonies in or on the border of Judaea--Caesarea, Ptolemais (modern-day Acre), and Aelia Capitolina. Were the residents of these colonies under Roman law or under Judaean law? Also, what of the neighbors of Judaea when visiting Judaea? In Samaria, there was Flavia Neapolis (present-day Nablus)--under whose juridiction would these Samaritans fall? And (most perplexing to me) why would a Nazarene--who as a resident of Galilee was not part of the Roman province of Judaea--be subject to the authority of a Judaean governor? It might be argued that Nazarene Jews visiting Jerusalem were subject to local laws, but then would the same apply to visitors from Berytus and Bostra as well?

I'm wondering about the application of law in the provinces. There is a famous scene in John 18:31 that bears on the topic, but as you can see here, the crucial line is translated (from Greek) in so many different ways as to invite wildly different interpretations. (Andrew Dalby?) The interpretation of the scene that makes sense to me is provided by Fergus Millar in "Reflections on the Trials of Jesus" (The Greek World, the Jews, and The East; p. 161, 163): In John, by contrast, Passover, which has not yet arrived, dominates everything. It is because Jesus is brought before Pilate on the morning of the day whose evening will see the onset of Passover that Jesus' accusers will not enter the praetorium. It is, on this interpretation, because the sanctity of the festival prevents the holding of a capital trial even on the day before, that they tell Pilate, "It is not permitted to us to kill anyone."... It was not Roman law but their own which made them say [this]. If Millar is correct (and he expresses the view only hypothetically), then it suggests that the Jews had a fair amount of autonomy in the region, which leads me to wonder about the status of Roman law in the provinces more broadly: What happened when local law forbade a given behavior but Roman law did not? What happened when local law permitted a given behavior but Roman law did not? If a behavior was forbidden by both Roman law and local law, did jurisdiction fall to the Roman magistrate or the local magistrate?

Hehehe. Read it HERE; see it . Also, Doc's favorite scene HERE.

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).

It's not exactly the same because a market for a good (e.g., votes) requires that sellers (e.g., voters) reliably deliver the goods. If I can't be sure that you'll actually vote for L. Candidatus Unscrupulus when I pay you to do so, I have no incentive to pay you. This is why I say that bribery was irrational. Lots of reasons--improved resumes, worse competitors, changes in electoral rules, changes in application of electoral rules, etc.

Actually, it IS a silly inference. The reason to think that killing enemies had a real--as opposed to symbolic--effect on war is NOT that knowledgeable warriors made such killings. The reason to think that killing enemies has an effect on war is that wars end when there are no enemies left to fight (if not sooner); therefore, killing enemies has an effect on war. We've been over this before, but I'll repeat it again: it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it's impossible to find evidence that bribery has NO effect. Yakobson makes a good point about oligarchy, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

For Monty Python fans, enjoy Monty Python and the Works of Josephus.

For differential diagnosis, the most important symptom described by Galen is an exanthem, which strongly indicates smallpox.

R. S. Gottfried in his book 'The Black Death' claims it was smallpox and probably marks the first introduction of it in Mediterranean Europe. Apparently the pox lasted for 15 yrs, devestating Italy, Egypt, and Asia Minor. It is thought that small pox was present in some Germanic tribes, but was never transmitted from across the Rhine. Roman legionaries arriving from the east seem to be the culprits. Is there anything in the description of the symptoms that allow a smallpox rather than a measles diagnosis?

Was the Antonine Plague a plague of smallpox--or measles?

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. 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. The superstitious aspect was that "it might just work", and the fact that the "other guy" did it made it even more attractive. There was also the traditional aspect--prior to the secret ballot, bribery would have been effective, and unscrupulous candidates would undoubtedly have bribed voters to short-term gain. For this reason, bribery probably became expected by equally unscrupulous voters themselves, leading to the symbolic value of bribery. That is, if voters expected both sides to bribe them, then even if the bribe itself didn't buy a vote, the voters might still punish candidates who refused to go through the meaningless (and expensive) ritual. Viewed in this light, the laws against bribery can be viewed as an attempt to put a stop to the meaningless arms race between candidates. But--and excuse me if I'm insulting your intelligence for even explaining this fact--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. 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.

See previous link HERE. 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.

Caesar III and IV were good city-building games with a fun backstory.

What are you talking about? The lex Gabinia Tabellaria was not the first anti-bribery law, nor is it even clear that it was meant to be one. I really have no idea what those two passages from Plutarch are meant to show.

Here's a recreation of a Roman saddle.

At the risk of causing my namesake to turn over in his grave, I really don't see the harm in bribery in the late republic. Since the lex Gabinia Tabellaria of 139, voting occurred by secret ballot. Given this, what difference would bribery make anyway? If L. Candidatus Unscrupulus gives you 1000 sesterces to vote for him, take it and vote for the other guy--who would know the difference?

I thought the standard form of address in the middle Republic would have been praenomen+gens (i.e., Marcus Tullius). But without a nomenclator standing by the centurion, I'd guess that 'extreme nicknames' (e.g., "chickpea" for a guy with a giant mole on his face; "lefty" for the guy who dropped his gladius; "hairy" for the bald guy; "silent" for the guy who never talks) would serve the purpose, become well-known, and eventually become elevated to (heritable) cognomina (e.g., Cicero, Scaevola, Caesar, Tacitus). Whether most cognomina had a military origin is an extreme guess, but ... maybe? Seems like a decent explanation for why those cognomina were so darned saucy.

Archaeologists have uncovered a very well-preserved frieze that had graced a tomb north of Rome. The frieze depicts a gladiatorial bout from before the Augustan reforms. Picture gallery HERE.