Freethought & Rationalism Archive

zhugin · 09-28-2008, 07:16 AM

It doesn't have to be like that. Fuchs says:

"Not even with this examination [Teresa Lodis] by which Andresens conclusions in all parts were confirmed, the question whether or not the 'e' in the syllable 'chrest-' was changed already by the copyist himself, can be answered with full certainty. ... But even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist, which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chestianos" in his original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i"."

Clivedurdle · 09-28-2008, 10:34 AM

Did anyone here actually read the Archimedes Codex (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It describes the latest techniques of investigation including various scanning techniques and analysis of inks to ascertain when and where they originated.

It should be obvious what is original - but are we not looking at a copy in the first place - what was altered and to be able to date it all.

But forensic science does not belong here!

the_cave · 09-28-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This scenario, original "chrestianos" corrected almost immediately to "christianos", might mean that "chrestianos" was simply a mistake by the original copyist which he immediately sought to remedy.

Though the copyist could have just been copying along, realized what he'd begun to write, then quickly "corrected" it.

Personally I would like to see Carrier respond to the claim that the "e" was original to the manuscript. It seems fairly clear to me as well that it was.

Richard Carrier · 09-28-2008, 01:31 PM

I won't be monitoring this thread, but I'll weigh in a bit to clarify my position and the evidence:

I like Pearse's idea of getting a high-res color photo of the folio. That would be expensive (too much for me), but if anyone does it, I would be delighted to discuss what appears there. Although if the argument is that a letter was scraped off (not what Fuchs says, but what Lodi does), it may require physical examination to detect this (as I have worked with this kind of thing directly before), and that's not going to happen among us anytime soon. And it might be contestable (i.e. highly subjective) without, as Clivedurdle noted, advanced forensic technology.

But Pearse is wrong that there is any /e/ "clearly" there. The photo shows not even the tiniest hint of such a thing, and there can be no mistake (and even Fuchs agrees) that the ms. as we have it says /i/, not /e/. The claim is not that the ms. says /e/, but that it once upon a time used to say /e/, but now says /i/. The question is: where is the evidence that it used to say /e/? I cannot see it. And what cannot be seen at all even on what is (in fact) a good photo cannot be described as "clearly" there (unless Pearse has access to a better photo--in which case, I am very interested in seeing that).

Also, the Christiani in the margin is nowhere near the other marginal notes. Though Pearse is right that no system existed to distinguish different kinds of marginalia (a source of endless errors in textual transmission), the most likely explanation for this one is that Christiani was a variant in a ms. known to the copyist, and he put it in the margin for the same reason noted by Pearse: it's the wrong case, hence the scribe assumed it must have been a mistake, but it was attested, so he included it. It's also possible the scribe's only exemplar had Christiani, and that he knew this was wrong and corrected it himself to Christianos, then put the original reading in the margin as a reminder that the text represents his own emendation.

Most other remarks in this thread (e.g. that such a scraping off would be very unusual; such a correction by the same scribe would sooner mean the /e/ was his mistake and not in his exemplar; etc.) are correct. And I can add the further point that if a scribe erased an /e/ to put the correct /i/ in, he would use the /ri/ form (as in Christos on the line below, etc., as Spin observed), not the wrong (though otherwise standard) /i/ form. The simplest and best explanation for why the wrong /i/ is there is that the original scribe mistakenly wrote the wrong /i/, and that explains all the evidence without positing any invisible /e/.

Also, that there is a gap into which an /e/ could fit is wholly immaterial. There are gaps like that all over the page. They mean nothing. A scribe is not a machine. There will be continuous random variations in kerning in any human's writing, no matter how careful he is, and this scribe clearly wasn't even seeking mechanical perfection, just legibility.

I have posted the entire folio as reproduced by Fuchs here, since one must examine the whole page to understand what I am saying (and why I think Fuchs is wrong). And below is a complete summary of what I've said privately by email (just so we're clear). Though I should mention that the email conversation involved began with the claim that all mss. of Tacitus say Chestianos. Obviously, none do. The claim that one used to say that has evidently now become embellished into the claim that it does say that, but that's not correct. Even if there is a palimpsest here (though I doubt it), it remains a fact that the current text says /i/ as even Fuchs attests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Incidentally, I just got a look at [a photo of] the Mediceus II ms. of Tacitus and it very definitely says Christianos in the text, with Christiani in the margins as a variant, no mention of Chrest- anything. In other words, in M. II the actual text says Christianos and Christus. There is no Chrest- in either case (not even as an offered variant). Fuchs claims otherwise, but he has clearly erred in his reading of the ms., which he even reproduces a photo of in his article on this in Vigiliae Christianae (1950). The i in this ms.'s script does come close to resembling an e (hence an obvious explanation of the error existing at all, the letters looking so alike), but it can easily be shown that the form in M. II fol. 38r is an i and not an e, by simply comparing other mid-syllabic i's and e's on the same page. Fuchs was evidently only looking at other r-i combinations and not at other i's, and thus inferring the i in Christianos was a sloppy e (even though it doesn't resemble any e on the page). But, e.g., the form used for i in the word undique a few lines down is identical to the one in Christianos (as also in other instances where i does not follow r). The scribe thus goofed in not using his usual form of i following r but in using his alternate (in fact standard) i-form, thus misleading Fuchs and evidently all subsequent scholars relying on him in turn.

...I don't see [what Fuch's claims] on the photo. He might be claiming it was scraped off and thus only visible in the page texture and not the photo, but I didn't notice him mentioning anything like that (and why would he include the photo if he knew it didn't show what he was talking about?). Rather, he seems clearly to be saying an overwrite was made, but I can plainly see there is none. Hence I suspect he is imagining an overwrite as an explanation for what I observe: the scribe used the wrong form of i here (his usual form, instead of his ri form).

There is also no "overbridge" to the st, but an underbridge (a stroke at the bottom), but that's a typical penstroke. It doesn't correspond to what would be there if an e were to precede s. Just note the cross-stroke in Christ: if there is a bridge there, yet no e, why would a bridge in Christianos indicate a missing e? Again, I think he is struggling to explain the actual mistake (the wrong i form) by seeing what isn't there. Compare all the e's on the page and ask yourself how putting an e in Christianos would produce the only cross-stroke that is actually there. Then, look at undique several lines down and notice how the pen [almost] continues a light stroke from the i to the q (barely visible, but you can see how that is where the pen would continue on to write the next letter, whether a q or an s). In contrast, look at how the e connects with s in repressaque (end of the line under the line with Christ in it) and then ask how it would look if the "e connected with s" in Christianos as Fuchs claims, and you'll see the problem.

...You should be able to see for yourself there is no e that has been corrected (look at the e in appellabat and ask how on earth Fuchs sees an overwritten e in Christianos). One might claim the scribe started writing an e but never finished, but (a) that isn't what Fuchs is claiming, and (b) the e couldn't have been finished because the scribe clearly never wrote the top stroke, yet if he hadn't, he could never have written the bottom stroke, since when writing the e this follows the top stroke in a continuous motion, so a partial letter corrected mid-stroke would not explain what we have.

Fuchs is simply mistaken.

I'll repeat: compare the cross stroke from /e/ to /l/ in appellabat (the word immediately after Christianos) and then look at the cross stroke from the (current) /i/ to /s/ in Christianos. Fuchs is claiming this cross stroke was created when an /e/ was mistakenly written there, but the stroke is in the wrong place if that were the case.

Contrast with the /i-s/ pairing in poenis on the line above that, and principis on the second line from the top. To see an isolated /s/ form see the /ss/ in the (abbreviated) iussum in the third line and compare: the mid-level dot in every /s/ is a part of the /s/ form, not evidence of a previous ligature point. You can see this again in the initial /s/ in supplicio (one line down from Christ and two words in).

Again in contrast, I repeat: compare the cross stroke between /e/ and /s/ in repressaque (end of line nine, i.e. the line under the line with Christ in it). No comparison. Also note how much more pronounced are the strokes constituting the lower part of /e/ (not just this one, but every one on the page). Although the standard-form /i/ everywhere on the page is drawn almost identically, the entire bottom half of any given /e/ is typically more curvy and longer on the last stroke than the same strokes in any /i/.

Not that the /i/ is without any curve in the vertical stroke or lacks a right-turned serif at the bottom, but the differences are evident. Look at the second /i/ in invisos (line 5 near the end, just before the line with Christianos) and the second /i/ in nominis (end of line 6, the line with Christianos), and you can see there is no basis for seeing any even partially erased /e/ in Christianos. All the strokes and their entire shape are entirely explained by this letter having always been an /i/, but are poorly explained by proposing they were ever part of an /e/.

The only exception would be if our /i/ is a palimpsest and the /e/ was entirely scraped off, and so effectively as to remove all visible traces of it on a photograph. But my remarks above challenge that assumption--e.g. it is not what Fuchs appears to be claiming, it doesn't make a lot of sense, it is a priori improbable, etc. Hence it can only remain a mere assumption until someone goes and looks at the actual manuscript in person. For there is no evidence of it on the best photo I have available.

However, I may have to examine Lodi's original paper--she should be a reliable source, and as quoted by Fuchs she claims there are hints of erased ink--in fact the same ink, hence the conclusion that the scribe immediately corrected himself even before continuing, which would suggest the error was his, not in his exemplar. And if his exemplar had Christiani, which he corrected to Christianos (a likely explanation of the marginal note), that would support this conclusion, i.e. that the exemplar had an /i/ and not an /e/.

zhugin · 09-28-2008, 06:18 PM

It doesn't seem like Fuchs had any opinion based on his own studies, but only on the studies by Andresen and Lodi (the latter seems to have given her judgement directly to Fuchs, without publishing an own paper; he writes that it is retailed with "friendly permission", and cites no other source than Lodi herself), which came to the same result, the first based upon some kind of photo studies and the latter based upon studies at the manuscript itself. Thus Fuchs makes no claims of his own, except the ones based on these studies; Fuchs relies on them, and doesn't seem to discuss the matter more than regarding the "authorship" of the conversion of the e to an i (see #21 above). Until a new study, which modern forensic methods, of the manuscript is made, I think the safest thing to do is to rely on the study by Lodi, instead of speculating based only upon black and white photographs. The ink(s) and the erased space itself cannot be examined by looking at a photograph. Carriers "new" findings does not refute Fuchs (silent) conclusions in any way, because Fuchs relies on scientific studies of the manuscript, and not on his own comparation between letters in the document. Logic cannot triumph over hard facts (and bumblebees can fly, to take an old cliché).

Regarding Andresens use of the word "überbrückt", I think it's invalid to question this by saying "There is also no 'overbridge' to the st, but an underbridge"; the word "überbrückt" does not mean litterary over-bridge, but rather "join", in the context. If Lodi says this joining stroke is not a simple pen stroke by the same writer, but made later by "another hand", I would rather take this as fact until new evidence is presented (and studies of old photos are still not in any way new evidence regarding the ink on the document itself). A new examination made at the Biblioteca Laurenziana Medicea would be very good, and probably conclusive at this matter.

I cannot see why a Christian monk writing in the 11th century would read "Christianos" and still write "Chrestianos" (he wasn't "Chrestian", was he?). It's then more logical that the monks own manuscript read "Chrestianos", and that the monk found this odd, and changed it, as Fuchs speculates (#21). I also see no reason why the scribe would use this i-form in an ri, only here, so I believe that it was an e, changed into an i in the most discrete way possible (it would not have been discrete to erase the r and the e to write the ordinary ri-form; it would have been easier only to change the e into an i), until someone presents a folio with another i in an ri-combination, written like this.

the_cave · 09-28-2008, 07:18 PM

I should clarify: there are at least some traces of ink by the base of the first "s". There *might* be another smudge just to the left of the "s", but it's hard to tell. But it isn't obvious that either of them are in the right place for an "e". I also agree that only looking directly at the manuscript would totally resolve the question.

Roger Pearse · 09-29-2008, 03:25 AM

Just for reference, here are the Perseus Latin and English.

XLIV. Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. mox petita dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri, ex quibus supplicatum Vulcano 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 Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio 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. 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 usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.

XLIV. 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 Judæa, 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.

Roger Pearse · 09-29-2008, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

I like Pearse's idea of getting a high-res color photo of the folio. That would be expensive (too much for me), but if anyone does it, I would be delighted to discuss what appears there.

The prices for an order are here (PDF). My Italian isn't great and I haven't time to find my way through this, but a new colour digital photo looks as if it would be less than $10. Can someone with more time and Italian have a look for high res colour?

Quote:

Although if the argument is that a letter was scraped off (not what Fuchs says, but what Lodi does), it may require physical examination to detect this (as I have worked with this kind of thing directly before), and that's not going to happen among us anytime soon. And it might be contestable (i.e. highly subjective) without, as Clivedurdle noted, advanced forensic technology.

I agree. Even the best photography may not show the marks of the knife on the parchment.

Quote:

Also, the Christiani in the margin is nowhere near the other marginal notes. Though Pearse is right that no system existed to distinguish different kinds of marginalia (a source of endless errors in textual transmission), the most likely explanation for this one is that Christiani was a variant in a ms. known to the copyist, and he put it in the margin for the same reason noted by Pearse: it's the wrong case, hence the scribe assumed it must have been a mistake, but it was attested, so he included it. It's also possible the scribe's only exemplar had Christiani, and that he knew this was wrong and corrected it himself to Christianos, then put the original reading in the margin as a reminder that the text represents his own emendation.

Are the other marginalia on the same page corrections also? I cannot read most of them clearly, but they do not seem so: e.g. Pontius Pilate? Note the cross drawn in the margin also.

Quote:

The question is: where is the evidence that it used to say /e/? I cannot see it. ...

And I can add the further point that if a scribe erased an /e/ to put the correct /i/ in, he would use the /ri/ form (as in Christos on the line below, etc., as Spin observed), not the wrong (though otherwise standard) /i/ form.

I'm not sure that I follow this. The argument is that he would use the ligatured /ri/ rather than a /i/, if he was erasing an /e/ rather than an /i/. Why?

At the moment he has left the page with a non-ligatured /ri/. Surely this by itself is evidence that the letter has been changed, if we follow the argument that he would use a ligature if he could.

Also, why do we suppose that a ligature is 'right' and non-ligature 'wrong'?

Quote:

The simplest and best explanation for why the wrong /i/ is there is that the original scribe mistakenly wrote the wrong /i/, and that explains all the evidence without positing any invisible /e/.

Also, that there is a gap into which an /e/ could fit is wholly immaterial. There are gaps like that all over the page. They mean nothing. A scribe is not a machine. There will be continuous random variations in kerning in any human's writing, no matter how careful he is, and this scribe clearly wasn't even seeking mechanical perfection, just legibility.

Which other examples are we discussing here?

Quote:

I have posted the entire folio as reproduced by Fuchs here, since one must examine the whole page to understand what I am saying

Thank you -- very useful.

I regret that at the moment I cannot take the time to examine the examples given -- sorry.

zhugin · 09-29-2008, 08:14 AM

Clivedurdle · 09-29-2008, 01:08 PM

http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/...altrials1.html

Quote:

Multispectral imaging is a digital imaging technique. Numerous photographs of an area are taken at different wavelengths of light, resulting in a digital "stack" of images. Algorithms (recipes if you like) are then written in order to enhance particular characteristics of the imaged area. In the case of the Palimpsest, obviously, we wanted to bring out the under text.

The immediate results appear to be spectacular. Above is an image of folio f.70v. The imagers succeeded in separating the spectral signature of the Archimedes ink from the parchment underneath it, and that of the prayer book on top of it. To bring out the Archimedes text even more, they then made the prayer book ink look like the parchment. Below, one can clearly see areas of text and diagrams that are invisible, or at least extremely hard to discern, under RGB light.

Despite the extraordinary appearance of these pictures, and the potential that they show for these advanced imaging techniques, the scholars were dissatisfied with the results.
1) The images appeared blurry. They were not out of focus, but rather it proved difficult to register the images accurately. To take images in different wavelengths of light, different filters have to be placed in front of the lens of the camera. Unfortunately, the lens affected the path of the light, and altered the size of the image. When one image was combined with another, they did not line up correctly. This is not a problem when one is imaging large areas from space, but it is a problem when one is imaging the details of the Byzantine minuscule script in which the Palimpsest was written.
2) There were lots of "artifacts" in the image. The images that the scientists produced were highly processed. When one manipulates images, one necessarily creates artifacts or "noise." Again, when trying to read the tenth century script this was a great hindrance.
3) The imagers were imaging at about 300 dpi, which the scholars found insufficient to their needs. The scholars liked to “blow-up” individual characters to the size of their computer screens when they try to decipher the text, and to do this successfully, the images needed to be of a higher resolution.

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

09-28-2008, 07:16 AM	#21
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45	It doesn't have to be like that. Fuchs says: "Not even with this examination [Teresa Lodis] by which Andresens conclusions in all parts were confirmed, the question whether or not the 'e' in the syllable 'chrest-' was changed already by the copyist himself, can be answered with full certainty. ... But even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist, which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chestianos" in his original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i"."

09-28-2008, 10:34 AM	#22
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Did anyone here actually read the Archimedes Codex (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It describes the latest techniques of investigation including various scanning techniques and analysis of inks to ascertain when and where they originated. It should be obvious what is original - but are we not looking at a copy in the first place - what was altered and to be able to date it all. But forensic science does not belong here!

09-28-2008, 06:18 PM	#25
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45	It doesn't seem like Fuchs had any opinion based on his own studies, but only on the studies by Andresen and Lodi (the latter seems to have given her judgement directly to Fuchs, without publishing an own paper; he writes that it is retailed with "friendly permission", and cites no other source than Lodi herself), which came to the same result, the first based upon some kind of photo studies and the latter based upon studies at the manuscript itself. Thus Fuchs makes no claims of his own, except the ones based on these studies; Fuchs relies on them, and doesn't seem to discuss the matter more than regarding the "authorship" of the conversion of the e to an i (see #21 above). Until a new study, which modern forensic methods, of the manuscript is made, I think the safest thing to do is to rely on the study by Lodi, instead of speculating based only upon black and white photographs. The ink(s) and the erased space itself cannot be examined by looking at a photograph. Carriers "new" findings does not refute Fuchs (silent) conclusions in any way, because Fuchs relies on scientific studies of the manuscript, and not on his own comparation between letters in the document. Logic cannot triumph over hard facts (and bumblebees can fly, to take an old cliché). Regarding Andresens use of the word "überbrückt", I think it's invalid to question this by saying "There is also no 'overbridge' to the st, but an underbridge"; the word "überbrückt" does not mean litterary over-bridge, but rather "join", in the context. If Lodi says this joining stroke is not a simple pen stroke by the same writer, but made later by "another hand", I would rather take this as fact until new evidence is presented (and studies of old photos are still not in any way new evidence regarding the ink on the document itself). A new examination made at the Biblioteca Laurenziana Medicea would be very good, and probably conclusive at this matter. I cannot see why a Christian monk writing in the 11th century would read "Christianos" and still write "Chrestianos" (he wasn't "Chrestian", was he?). It's then more logical that the monks own manuscript read "Chrestianos", and that the monk found this odd, and changed it, as Fuchs speculates (#21). I also see no reason why the scribe would use this i-form in an ri, only here, so I believe that it was an e, changed into an i in the most discrete way possible (it would not have been discrete to erase the r and the e to write the ordinary ri-form; it would have been easier only to change the e into an i), until someone presents a folio with another i in an ri-combination, written like this.

09-28-2008, 07:18 PM	#26
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	I should clarify: there are at least some traces of ink by the base of the first "s". There might be another smudge just to the left of the "s", but it's hard to tell. But it isn't obvious that either of them are in the right place for an "e". I also agree that only looking directly at the manuscript would totally resolve the question.

09-29-2008, 03:25 AM	#27
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Just for reference, here are the Perseus Latin and English. XLIV. Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. mox petita dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri, ex quibus supplicatum Vulcano 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 Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio 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. 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 usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontis et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur. XLIV. 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 Judæa, 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.

09-29-2008, 08:14 AM	#29
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.