Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 12-17-2004, 08:31 AM

There has been previous debates on this forum about the authenticity of the passage in Book 15 of the Annals of Tacitus referring to Nero persecuting Christians in the aftermath of the Fire of Rome.

Quote:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

To avoid repeating her too much of those debates, I'll briefly say that given the evidence of Suetonius and 2nd century Christian writers some sort of persecution is IMO highly probable and the passage is unilkely to be a Christian interpolation meant to be read as really pro-Christian despite its apparent hostility.

If it was meant to be really pro-Christian then it would

a/ lack the reference to 'hatred against mankind' which is an allegation similar to that used by Tacitus and others against the Jews as being a narrow exclusive sect, something which Christians from the late 2nd century on are keen to disavow as part of their attempt to distinguish themselves from Judaism.

b/ have some reference to the Christians obstinacy in persisting in their foolish superstition despite offers of clemency if they renounced this nonsense (read bravery in persisting with the truth despite bribes and threats).

c/ avoid inventing the idea that persecution of Christians started because they were convicted of being a terrorist group who burnt down cities. IF the absence of reference to this passage in Tacitus before Constantine requires explanation, then the reluctance to spread the idea that Christians had been convicted of terrorism would provide quite a good explanation.

The problem with point c/ however is that not only is it IMO highly unlikely that Christians would invent the idea of Nero blaming them for starting the fire of Rome, it is also IMO unlikely to be historically true.

There is no hint in Suetonius or Cassius Dio of anyone except Nero being suspected of the fire, it is IMO most unlikely that the Christians were actually guilty, there does not seem to have been conclusive evidence that the fire was a result of arson at all, and whether or not Nero was actually to blame it would have been most unwise to openly agree with the rumour that the fire was arson but attempt to avoid being blamed himself by accusing some entirely innocent unpopular minority group of being to blame. (An official position that the fire was not proven to be arson would be quite incompatible with executing Christians for starting the fire, while accepting that it was certainly arson would tend to encourage not discourage the suspicions against Nero himself.)

If then Christians were not really accused of arson what can we make of the passage ? Those with a very high view of the accuracy and objectivity of Tacitus will regard the above as evidence against authenticity, however, if we examine the passage carefully we can IMO see a historically plausible earlier account which Tacitus could have slightly modified to produce the final text.

The whole passage is part of an account of measures taken to propitiate the gods after the fire, in this context it is entirely plausible that it would have been claimed that the gods had caused or permitted the fire as a sign of their displeasure at the toleration within Rome itself of illegitimate groups such as the Christians. There are clear parallels with later episodes of persecution within the Empire.

What I am suggesting is that Tacitus rewrote records of Nero persecuting Christians as an act of pious propitiation of the Roman gods, in which Christians were blamed as responsible for the fire not in the sense of being arsonists but in the sense of bringing the gods anger upon Rome. By rewriting the account he is able to be deeply hostile to the Christians without being sympathetic to Nero whom he also loathed. Despite the Christians deserving harsh treatment Nero's motives are presented as so illegitimate as to avoid any risk of putting the persecution among Nero's good deeds the way Suetonius did.

Presenting the episode so as to express disgust both at non-Roman superstitions and at Nero himself is so rhetorically effective in terms of Tacitus's agenda that it might well justify presenting things this way.

(Some suggestions about the passage as an interpolation have only the part about Christ as inauthentic. Although I think the whole passage is by Tacitus the above argument is only relevant to those who regard the whole account about Christians as inauthentic.)

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer · 12-17-2004, 10:35 AM

This is likely to be more of an interpolation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

The passage I'm doubting is the passage which says "suffered the extreme penalty." Although being a Latin scholar (so modest, aren't I

) I am not familiar with Tacitus enough to make a point here. But I shall be reading more of him to see what I can find. I shall return!

Vorkosigan · 12-17-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car.

Yet, in Agricola Tacitus says that Nero did not like to witness the crimes he committed.

Chris Weimer · 12-17-2004, 03:38 PM

Good catch, Vorkosigan, although we still can't completely rule out that he did contradicts himself instead of an interpolation.

andrewcriddle · 12-18-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Yet, in Agricola Tacitus says that Nero did not like to witness the crimes he committed.

According to my suggestion the historical Nero did not regard his actions against the Christians as crimes but as acts of pious propitiation of the outraged Roman Gods.

(In any case the passage in Agricola which is a highly rhetorical attempt to show how Domitian was even worse than Nero is IMO dubious as history)

Quote:

It was not long before our hands dragged Helvidius to prison, before we gazed on the dying looks of Manricus and Rusticus, before we were steeped in Senecio’s innocent blood. Even Nero turned his eyes away, and did not gaze upon the atrocities which he ordered; with Domitian it was the chief part of our miseries to see and to be seen, to know that our sighs were being recorded, to have, ever ready to note the pallid looks of so many faces, that savage countenance reddened with the hue with which he defied shame.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 12-20-2004, 01:10 AM

Zindler notes:

In describing the early Christians as being haters "of the human race" (humani generis), the passage reverses the word order of normal Tacitean usage. In all other cases, Tacitus has generis humani.

Quote:

It was not long before our hands dragged Helvidius to prison, before we gazed on the dying looks of Manricus and Rusticus, before we were steeped in Senecio’s innocent blood. Even Nero turned his eyes away, and did not gaze upon the atrocities which he ordered; with Domitian it was the chief part of our miseries to see and to be seen, to know that our sighs were being recorded, to have, ever ready to note the pallid looks of so many faces, that savage countenance reddened with the hue with which he defied shame.

Hmmm...our translations are different. My Williamson translated implies that it was a Neronian habit:

Criddle:
Even Nero turned his eyes away, and did not gaze upon the atrocities which he ordered;

Williamson:Even Nero used to avert his eyes, and, though he ordered abominations, forebore to witness them.

With the second it looks more like a habit.

Michael

Toto · 12-20-2004, 01:43 AM

Note this from the Carotta thread: Claim that "chrestiani" were real estate speculators, not Christians. I don't have the linguistic background to evaluate it.

12-20-2004, 02:05 AM

On humani generis, the Elder Pliny, has a 7:2 ratio towards the normal usage of the genitive, compared to Tacitus's 6:1. Looks like Tacitus was just following normal usage most of the time which is the point of an inflected language - you can switch word order but certain orders are more conventional than others.

Williamson has probably the better translation for the imperfect. What is the Latin?

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Chris Weimer · 12-20-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacitus

Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. mox petita [a] dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri, ex quibus supplicatum Volcano et Cereri Proserpinaeque, ac propitiata Iuno per matronas, primum in Capitolio, deinde apud proximum mare, unde hausta aqua templum et simulacrum deae perspersum est; et sellisternia ac pervigilia celebravere feminae, quibus mariti erant.
Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque], ubi defecisset dies, in usu[m] nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.

Always good to have the original. http://thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ann15.shtml

Although I have to go to work now, I'll be on later tonight or tomorrow with a full translation.

andrewcriddle · 12-22-2004, 10:31 AM

In case anyone wants the Latin of the passage in Agricola about Nero turning away here it is http://thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.agri.shtml

Quote:

Nero tamen subtraxit oculos suos iussitque scelera, non spectavit: praecipua sub Domitiano miseriarum pars erat videre et aspici, cum suspiria nostra subscriberentur, cum denotandis tot hominum palloribus sufficeret saevus ille vultus et rubor, quo se contra pudorem muniebat.

Andrew Criddle

(This may be my last post till the New Year I'm away from my computer on holiday.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2004, 03:38 PM	#4
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Good catch, Vorkosigan, although we still can't completely rule out that he did contradicts himself instead of an interpolation.

12-20-2004, 01:43 AM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Note this from the Carotta thread: Claim that "chrestiani" were real estate speculators, not Christians. I don't have the linguistic background to evaluate it.

12-20-2004, 02:05 AM	#8
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	On humani generis, the Elder Pliny, has a 7:2 ratio towards the normal usage of the genitive, compared to Tacitus's 6:1. Looks like Tacitus was just following normal usage most of the time which is the point of an inflected language - you can switch word order but certain orders are more conventional than others. Williamson has probably the better translation for the imperfect. What is the Latin? Best wishes Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.