the_cave

In a 1972 article in Classical Review 22

http://www.jstor.org/stable/707602

(Sorry if you don't have JSTOR access)

K. R. Bradley offers support for the conjecture that "afflicti suppliciis" in Suetonius, Nero 16.2 should be amended to "affecti". Leaving aside his argument (it has to do with Orosius, and I think it's faulty, but nevermind for now), he states:

"Indeed it seems that the use of affigere to express the idea of physically inflicted suffering did not become regular until a time considerably later than that at which Suetonius was writing, Suet. Nero 16. 2 itself being the first known example."

But note that only under the assumption that "afflicti suppliciis" refers to the torture and killing of Christians, as described for example in Tacitus Annals 15.44, do we need to assume that "afflicti" refers to physically inflicted suffering.

1. Assume for the moment that the reference to Christianity in Nero 16.2 is a second-century composition (leaving aside for the moment whether Suetonius composed it or not).

2. Now remove the assumption that "afflicti" must refer to the torture and killing of Christians.

What are then the possible translations for "afflicti suppliciis"?

Huon

Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary

ad-flīgō (aff-) ad-fliīxī, ad-flictus, ad-flixere : to dash at, strike upon, throw down, overthrow

afflicti suppliciis : thrown down by supplices, stricken by supplices, afflicted by supplices

andrewcriddle

On the stated assumptions I think the phrase could mean he reduced to misery. However, in context, the passage seems to be referring to the imposition of a criminal penalty upon the Christians.

Andrew Criddle

spin

It's very hard to get away from the fact that it indicates they were executed, the common significance of supplicium in this context is punishment, to quote Lewis & Short "usu. of the penalty of death". The verb "afficio" is common with objects that imply the death penalty, "morte, cruciatu, poena, supplicio". If we look at Tacitus, what does "supplicio adfici" mean in A. 5.9 other than regarding the sentence of death? A similar question could be asked of Suetonius, Claudius 26.1 regarding Valeria Messalina who was "supplicio adfecit". What punishment do you think Julius Caesar threatened his captors with when Suetonius wrote (Julius 4.1) "supplicio ... adfecerit" or regarding procurators (Galba 12.1) "supplicio capitis adfecisset" or the punishment of the murderers of Galba (Vitellius 10.1) "supplicio adfici"? "Affligo" is similar enough to "afficio" to give "supplicium" the full force of the death penalty.


spin

the_cave

Why can't it be taken in the religious sense?

spin

1a. Jarrett's execution was relaxed and expressive.
1b. Jarrett's execution was quick and painless.

2a. Chomsky was handed a long sentence.
2b. Chomsky parsed a long sentence.

The noun "supplicium" has an administrative context and is accompanied by an appropriate verb. No wriggle room.


spin

the_cave

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why can't suppliciis mean "prayers, offerings"? So: "He struck down the prayers of the Christians."

Is this reading impossible?

Waning Moon Conrad

Yes it is impossible.

Because suppliciis is ablative, so it means by or with. Hence, struck down with punishment, or whacked hard with execution or something to that effect.

If the prayers themselves were struck down, they would be the direct object of the verb which in this case, is transitive and hence takes the accusative case. The plural accusative of supplicium is supplicia.

Roger Pearse

We really need the whole sentence, you know, but suppliciis is ablative - by/with/from/in/on. Afflicti is either plural (if you mean to insert a silent verb = afflicti sunt) or else a genetive (of what?).

You're probably thinking 'supplicium'=supplication. But that is really "supplicatio", attested in Livy 10.23:1 and Vitruvius 3.3:3.

According to the OLD, there are four meanings for supplicium (supplex + ium):

1a. A thing offered/act performed to placate someone, esp. supplicium dare - to make reparation, atone.
1b. An appeal for help, entreaty.

These are cited from Plautus and Terrence.

2. (Religious) - equivalent to supplicatio.

This appears in Livy, Sallust, Tacitus Ann. 3.64.

3a. Satisfaction exacted by the law, punishment (esp. of a physical nature)
3b. supplicium summum = death penalty
3c. extreme suffering, torment (inflicted on someone regarded as a victim)

a. Cicero, Horace, Caesar, Suetonius (Cal. quoted), Livy, Quintillian (lots of authors)
b. Tacitus, Pliny.

4a. Supplicium dare = to pay the penalty, suffer punishment
4b. Punishment exacted from someone, often = put to death.

Cicero, Vergil, Caesar, Nepos.

But I would have thought "afflicti suppliciis" = "afflicted with punishments" was a fairly obvious. "Afflicted by/with prayers"? Not really.

I don't see how affecti rather than afflicti would affect the meaning here either.

OK, so this is a series of phrases against which "animadversa severa and coercita" were "instituta". So these are things about to be subjected to severe and coercive action, OK? Several of these phrases involve an omitted "sunt" or "est" ("are" or "is").

So it would be in English order "Christiani afflicti sunt suppliciis" - the Christians were afflicted with punishments. But he puts Christiani last in the clause, because he wants to describe them in the next one -- "genus hominum" ... "a bunch of guys" .... "superstitionis" ... "of a superstition" ... "novae et maleficae" ... this is a genetive, so describes the superstition, "novel and malefic."

Christiani is nominative; it is the subject of the clause. You suggested "he struck down the prayers of the Christians"; But afflicti is the verb, and is plural and passive. It means "they were afflicted". Since this is one guy doing the stuff -- as you rightly see -- the one guy is not the subject of the clause (as we can tell from the plural and passive verb -- whoever is the subject is plural and having it done to them).

So really there is no doubt as to what is being said here. Sorry, but there it is. But I hope that this has helped people see the Latin and how it is put together, and why we need to see the original language in these sorts of questions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Could it be dative? Still, I can see this isn't going to work--there's no reason for it to be dative, is there?

But it is also meaning 2 in the OLD, as you have noted.

Anyway, it does seem that this phrase, whoever wrote it, must refer to the tradition of Neronean physical persecution of Christians.