andrewcriddle

This post borrows from The Making of a Heretic by Burrus

There has been discussion on this forum about the connection between the reference to Nero's persecution in the Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus and the similar passage in Tacitus. (The mainstream position being that Sulpicius Severus is quoting Tacitus.)

Sulpicius Severus' account of the persecution contains no parallel to the account in Tacitus of Christian origins. However, his account of Priscillian does
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG2020/_P2S.HTM http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sulpi...ruschron2.html
Compare this to Tacitus. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm The parallelisms are unlikely to be coincidental. IMO they provide further evidence that Sulpicius Severus had our text of Tacitus before him, others on this forum may interpret things differently.

Andrew Criddle

spin

Yes, it would seem to provide evidence for the opposite direction. The text of Sulpicius Severus mightn't attack orthodox christians, but it will attack heretics. What better source for a pagan attack on christians than using what he says against gnostics?

ETA: And why would S. Severus reuse something he is supposed to have received from Tacitus (ie words used to attack christians) to attack gnostics?


spin

avi

Thanks Andrew for drawing to our attention this interesting passage, with some similarities to the writings of Tacitus.
I would offer two short comments, both perhaps unuseful. I apologize for submitting no evidence with regard to the main point of your thread.

1. I would have translated mali as malevolent, rather than as mischief. If I am not in error, you have also suggested "mischief" as a suitable translation for exitiabilis, whereas I prefer deadly or destructive for that descriptor, whether preceding or following superstitio... I may simply be revealing my ignorance here, by asserting a non-existant limitation, probably reflecting the inadequacies of my Latin training from half a century ago. Certainly the topic, related to Arianism, and Gnosticism, both opposed by Roman clergy, with profound consequences, including death, for those opposing the trinitarians, would argue against use of "mischievous" to describe the social interactions of that era.

2. Looking at the two passages, apart from mali, there are only a couple of words that are completely identical, and they are inverted in the two passages, so, I am unconvinced that these two passages demonstrate source and copy, respectively. How else could one express the notion of "destructive" (or "deadly") irrationality (or "superstition"). If I were writing a short paragraph summarizing the authoritarian despotism of Constantine, I might reference his execution of his own son, or killing his wife, or ordering the defacing of marble statues of those no longer in favor with him, or commanding destruction of all of Arius' manuscripts, or perhaps furnish some other anecdote, also found in another source, perhaps here on the IIDB forum for example, but that doesn't mean that I copied my text from someone else, (though, yes, I could have too!), it could simply be that I employed a few similar words, like tyrant, murderer, dictator, words also found in someone else's post.

Yes, I may be a plagiarist, but, it is also possible that certain words are simply the most accurate for describing particular events or ideas. Having a couple of identical words in a passage, doesn't convince me that one author has lifted a method of expression from an older, ostensibly more authoritative source, or that author B possessed author A's writing. As with the Luke/Josephus controversy, there could also be the possibility of a third, (no longer extant) source, upon which, both Tacitus and Sulpicius Severus relied, and to which, neither offered acknowledgement.
Sincerely,
avi

andrewcriddle

Hi Avi

The translations are not mine but those of the online sources I referenced.
I see your point about mischief although it can sometimes be a word of strong condemnation see Mischief
I agree that in itself this is not strong evidence of copying however we already know that there is some literary dependence between the descriptions of Nero's persecution in Tacitus and Sulpicius Severus.

Tacitus
Sulpicius Severus
Given this clear borrowing the suggestion of borrowing in the story of Priscillian becomes IMO more convincing.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

First of all S. Severus is heavily basing his account of Priscillian on earlier Pagan classics. There are studies of how the account of Priscillian borrows largely from the account of Catiline in Sallust.

Secondly Burrus suggests (plausibly or not) that the echoes of the condemnation of Christians by Tacitus in the condemnation of Priscillian by S. Severus discreetly suggest the ambiguity of his feelings about Priscillian and about the way in which he was denounced as a heretic.
S. Severus explicitly says Andrew Criddle

the_cave

What about:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG2020/_P2X.HTM

Well, after the death of Priscillian, not only was the heresy not suppressed, which, under him, as its author, had burst forth, but acquiring strength, it became more widely spread.


Any Latin parallels there as well?

Ben C Smith

Great question.

Latin of Severus, Chronicle 2.51.7a:

Ceterum Priscilliano occiso, non solum non repressa est haeresis, quae illo auctore proruperat, sed confirmata latius propagata est.

Latin of Tacitus, Annals 15.44:

Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque

The non solum in the former and the non modo in the latter also have the same basic meaning, but are applied differently.

Summary of corrrespondences (in English):

Author (originator or founder).
Not repressed or repressed for the moment.
Broke or broke forth.

Ben.

spin

I mustn't have expressed myself well. What I was asking about was the hypothetical resuse of an attack on christians. Wouldn't such an attack on christians have been seen as an affront rather than simply a mining source?

While I can see someone mining S.Severus for a single purpose, ie to construct an interpolated passage for Tacitus, I can't see the same Tacitean passage being put to such disparate usage.


spin

Roger Pearse

I believe St. Martin of Tours also objected strongly to the proceedings against the Priscillianists (their supposed heresies may have been little more than slander). It was a horrible, horrible precedent of state-sponsored religious persecution, and was seen as such by Christians at the time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Isn't there a third alternative--that Sulpicius Severus himself is responsible for the passage in Tacitus?