Search

In this paper it is argued that Jörg Rüpke's proposal to date the creation of the Roman triumph to the late 4th century BC cannot be accepted. First, it is demonstrated that some of R.'s reinterpretations of the triumphal phenomenology are debatable, others improbable or inconceivable, one (the most essential) impossible. Next, a few historical implications of the new theory are shown to evoke serious questions and objections. Finally, the four major historical arguments or premises on which the theory is founded are shown to be at variance with the available evidence. Consequently, there is no reason to reject the well-founded and practically unanimously accepted idea that the triumph was introduced in the "Etruscan period" of Rome (late 6th century BC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two kinds of sources are available to the historian to reconstruct the first centuries of the history of Mithradates' antidote: biographical information on Mithradates' interests in medicine, and a series of recipes. In this paper I argue that we cannot reconstruct the original recipe of Mithridatium from our existing sources. Instead, I examine how the Romans remodelled the history of the King's death and used the royal name to create a "Roman" drug. This drug enjoyed a huge popularity in the first centuries of the Roman Empire. An Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, consumed it as well as members of the upper class; and many highly literate physicians recommended it notwithstanding the medical sect they were belonging to. With all its expensive ingredients, and its claim to work as a panacea, Mithridatium responded to a real demand in a Roman Empire at its commercial and political apogee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]