In search of Auctoritas et Maiestas – the Flavian Dynasty and Religions
Vespasian and his sons were forced to create their own style of politics, and, in search of auctoritas and maiestas, they could not neglect the realm of religion. We should bear in mind that in the Roman world, religion was an integral and indispensable component of social and po- litical life. For these reasons, these representatives of the Roman Imperial Dynasty, just like their predecessors and successors, successfully used different forms of activity surpassing the narrow interpretation of the domain of religio, including massive building programmes, monetary policy or even poetry, to express devotion and respect for mores maiorum as well as to confi rm the legal- ity of their power by presenting the divine approval of their political strength. It seems legitimate to acknowledge that the Flavian era did not bring revolutionary changes in traditional religion. This clearly shows that the new dynasty was perfectly aware that one of the aspects of a well-functioning Rome was preservation of the ancestors' customs and a belief in divine protection which could ensure safety, strength and belief in the unity of the Empire.
Isis Regina -- Zeus Sarapis@@@Das Iseum Campense in Rom: Studie Uber den Isiskult unter Domitian
redress an anachronistic view implanted by modern historians of science who, in order to distinguish trends in ancient thinking that appear to them compatible with modern modes of scientific or technological approaches, separated Greco-Roman medical speculations as 'scientific' from contemporary astrology and physiognomies, which they rejected as 'pseudo-science' and as such not worthy of serious thought. For those who are interested not so much in the 'roots' of rational medicine but the wider issues of life and society in the time of the Second Sophistic, Barton's comparative approach will be greatly rewarding. The study focuses on common characteristics in these seemingly disparate areas of expertise, such as the master-pupil relationship with its accompanying religious initiation-like procedures, the cut-throat competition between practitioners, resulting in the shaping of 'knowledge' in each field by the 'sport of rhetoric', the public debates of the Second Sophistic, in which the contestants intent on outdoing each other demanded skills in increasingly fine discriminations. Those who find little positive benefit in employing theoretical models derived from the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge or from New Rhetoric may want to skip the Introduction, which is somewhat opaque for those not thoroughly familiar with the writings of philosophers and sociologists writing in these fields. The rest of the book is highly informative and rewarding. Most of its important points are well taken without much investment by the reader in the proposed theoretical models. The central concern of the study is with the role of knowledge in power relationships, and vice versa. B. argues that what becomes defined as 'knowledge' is a result of 'power', and in turn those who are seen as possessors of 'knowledge' may themselves participate in power. This process would not appear circular if one considered the fact that all three branches discussed attempted to answer very basic human needs — the need to predict future events, both natural and man-made, the need to predict the character and behaviour of one's fellows, and finally, to predict and maybe to prevent disease and pain. B., however, is not interested in anchoring the power aspect of 'knowledge' in these needs but concentrates on the relationship between political power and expertise. In three riveting chapters B. brings to the reader's attention a wide range of ancient sources and makes enlightening comparisons between them. The first deals with astrology, a topic which, despite the wealth of ancient sources, has been relatively neglected by historians as intrinsically marginal and dubious. B. attempts to place Greco-Roman astrology in the social context which allowed it to be constructed as a plausible discipline. She then traces its rise and decline, relating it to the way powerful people, the emperors, adopted it when found useful, or tried to suppress it when it in itself became a source of power, a potential tool for legitimating usurpers. She argues convincingly that astrology's rationale and the way it was practised fit with the intellectual style and religious thinking of the time, and shared the world view implicit in both of these. The second chapter deals with the art of predicting from a person's external features his/her character and disposition. Here the focus is on Polemo, the second-century sophist who wrote the most influential thesis in this field, and whose work and career exemplify well both the way in which physiognomies exerted a claim to be 'knowledge', i.e. by systematization, by fine distinctions, and by the necessary and arduous initiation process for the neophyte, and how the 'knowledge' in turn played a considerable role in power struggles. The last chapter fits medicine into the same framework of the rhetorical contest. By systematically tracing the by now familiar methods of establishing expertise and maintaining 'oneupmanship' in the writings of Galen, B. indeed succeeds in putting to rest the distinction between ancient 'science' and 'pseudo-science' and, at the same time, in giving a lively and many-faceted picture of intellectual power-struggles in the High Empire. A short concluding section and three appendices complete this wide ranging and interesting book.
The Liverpool Cholera Epidemic of 1832 and Anatomical Dissection--Medical Mistrust and Civil Unrest
Asiatic cholera reached Britain for the first time in late 1831, with the main epidemic occurring during 1832. The disease caused profuse diarrhea, severe dehydration, collapse, and often death. There was widespread public fear, and the political and medical response to this new disease was variable and inadequate. In the summer of 1832, a series of "cholera riots" occurred in various towns and cities throughout Britain, frequently directed against the authorities, doctors, or both. The city of Liverpool, in the northwest of England, experienced more riots than elsewhere. Between 29 May and 10 June 1832, eight major street riots occurred, with several other minor disturbances. The object of the crowd's anger was the local medical fraternity. The public perception was that cholera victims were being removed to the hospital to be killed by doctors in order to use them for anatomical dissection. "Bring out the Burkers" was one cry of the Liverpool mobs, referring to the Burke and Hare scandal four years earlier, when two men had murdered people in Edinburgh in order to sell their bodies for dissection to the local anatomy school. This issue was of special concern to the Liverpool citizenry because in 1826, thirty-three bodies had been discovered on the Liverpool docks, about to be shipped to Scotland for dissection. Two years later a local surgeon, William Gill, was tried and found guilty of running an extensive local grave-robbing system to supply corpses for his dissection rooms. The widespread cholera rioting in Liverpool was thus as much related to local anatomical issues as it was to the national epidemic. The riots ended relatively abruptly, largely in response to an appeal by the Roman Catholic clergy read from church pulpits, and also published in the local press. In addition, a respected local doctor, James Collins, published a passionate appeal for calm. The Liverpool Cholera Riots of 1832 demonstrate the complex social responses to epidemic disease, as well as the fragile interface between the public and the medical profession.