ynquirer

Except for the fact that Sulpicius Severus was never in Italy, and there is no indication that Tacitus’ Annals ever travelled to Gaul. Furthermore, Severus’ Sacred History shows no traits of his having read anything of the Annals but the passage on the Christians.

In all likelihood someone else – possibly Paulinus of Nola – copied the passage and gave Severus notice of it. Not having many Latin, classical texts at hand reach, Severus freely reused it, both its contents and formal style, for different writings of his own.

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure what Sulpicius Severus' motive would have been. Interpolating an earlier writer and original composition seem unlikely strategies to both be found in the same person.

Sulpicius Severus seems to have been a full time author busily dictating away to stenographers http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG2018/_P3.HTM I can't see him copying out Tacitus just in order to interpolate bits of his own work.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I have difficulty myself in seeing an interpolator of Tacitus deliberately attempting to imitate the style of S. Severus.

Andrew Criddle

spin

I would too, but that's not the issue: it's not the style but the content.


spin

ynquirer

Actually, there is no evidence that Tacitus’ Annals ever travelled to anywhere but Monte Casino abbey in or shortly after the sixth century together with the contents of the Roman libraries. It was in that secluded place that Tacitus was found a thousand years later.

This is the reason why Eusebius, who never went to Italy, was ignorant of Tacitus on the Christians. And the reason why Paulinus of Nola, who spent a good many years near Naples in the early fifth century, caught interest in the passage, hand-copied it, and sent Severus what he deemed a noteworthy gap in Eusebius’ encyclopaedic account of the Christian history.

Roger Pearse

A few notes from memory, so don't rely on numerals precisely.

We have comparatively little information about where the works of Tacitus went during the Dark Ages. But we do know that they were known at the abbey of Fulda in lower Germany in the 9th century. (Fulda is a nexus in the web of transmission of texts generally). One of the two mss of the major works of Tacitus was (iirc) written there at that time. The other was written in the 11th century at Monte Cassino, at a time when there was a German abbot. It is a reasonable inference that the text came there around that time.

Fulda was sacked by the Swedish army in 1636, like all the other monasteries of the region, and a great many of its books are lost (including a fabulous Tertullian whose contents are argued about every time Tertullian's Apologeticum is edited).

Texts at Fulda often had an insular origin; that is, they came from Britain and Ireland, as part of the evangelistic push of the Irish monks across Europe that began in the 6th century. This is one reason why the texts were often of value. The interchange of texts in the early Dark Ages between the British Isles and Rome is attested by the fate of the Codex Amiatinus.

I'm not sure that we know -- as opposed to suppose -- all these things. Monte Cassino didn't exist in the early 5th century, for instance. But Paulinus could perfectly well have consulted the full text at that date, prior to the Roman collapse.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ynquirer

Forgive me, Roger. It is your posting that I wished to trigger off. And thank you, I wasn’t aware of Fulda.

Let me focus on the main issue. Tacitus was never a popular historian, not even in Roman times; pagans scarcely ever quote him. Also Tertullian seems unaware of it – but Tertullian never visited Rome, I think. Am I wrong? If I’m not, a logical conclusion is that, a century after its penning, there were a few copies – perhaps only one copy of the Annals buried under tons of scrolls in a library in Rome. Eusebius obviously caught no word of the text.

Paulinus of Nola, who was bishop of Nola near Naples from 410 to 431, had opportunity to visit Rome and her libraries quite frequently, so that he came across the text. He sent an autograph copy of the passage on the Christians to his friend Sulpicius Severus, who took profit from it, both contents and style. We know that Paulinus and Severus sent a number of letters to each other

Benedict founded Monte Cassino abbey in mid-6th century. Being Benedict’s first monastery, it was the first to be committed to the preservation of culture, that is, texts in serious risk of being destroyed in the often ravages of the Germanic peoples. In all likelihood, Tacitus’ Annals went there, together with the contents of one or several Roman libraries. From Cassino, the texts were later distributed to sister abbeys in order to have them copied. AFAIK the usual procedure was similar to the lending of master paintings between today’s art museums. The text was packaged with the utmost care and sent to an abbey that had shown interest in it. This might be happen with Fulda in the 9th century. Once copied, the text was sent back to the original keeper.

The process of packing, travelling, and copying – especially the last – was all the more wearing as it took many years. When received back in Cassino, it was probably added to a list of texts to be recopied to have a new text. The task was accomplished as soon as scribes were available, the whole commitment of them being tremendous. I don’t think that the 11th century was too late a date for the text to be copied anew, in particular if a German abbot thought that its service in Fulda was good reason to give it priority.

I know all this is supposition. Yet, do you think that the supposition that Severus could forge the whole text of Annals has more strength?

PS: The role of the Irish monks you mention seems paramount for religious texts, no that much for pagan texts like Tacitus’. Still, I may be wrong.

Roger Pearse

No hassle; people mostly haven't. But the name crops up repeatedly once you take an interest in manuscripts, you see.

I really don't want to disagree with you. But... it's not safe to infer from "Tacitus is not quoted often in the surviving handful of texts to reach us" to "Tacitus was unpopular".

That's why I refrained from writing an essay in reply.

No, it's bunk, unless there is some positive evidence (by which I do NOT mean, of course, that some rat-like person can manufacture some form of argument somehow). Anyone can allege anything, and we need pay no attention unless there is actual evidence for it. Other things being equal, the later author quotes the former.

Eric von Daniken did it first, and with better artwork. "Sulpicius forged Tacitus?" I'd say to those who came up with that nonsense, "Come on, guys; if you must invent stories, invent INTERESTING ones."

You are. Sorry! The same handful of people did everything in that period. It's fairly obvious why.

Consider some random Benedictine monastery. They have to have someone read to them at meals; that is the Rule. OK, they read the bible. After a while, someone gets bored. Then they find a copy of letters from Paul to this chap Seneca, all very moral. "Any reason why we can't read what the apostle wrote to this pagan?" asks one.

So they're soon reading the letters of Paul and Seneca. Never mind that it's a fake; they don't know that. The next thing is someone finds the letters of Seneca on the shelf, all very moral. "Wasn't he the guy that the apostle wrote to?" And in two steps, they're reading a pagan text at dinner time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ynquirer

Thank you, Roger, for the lecture. And I take the corrective with joy, just because I’ve altogether learned that supporters of the alleged forgery of Tacitus by Sulpicius Severus actually are – whether or not knowingly – followers of such a distinguished scholar as Erich von Daniken.

I, however, am ready to understand their strenuous efforts, as it is obvious that either Severus forged Annals 15:44 or he is a most reliable witness of its authenticity.

Let’s the carousel go round!

the_cave

I don't think this is true either--he would merely be a witness to a 4th-century terminus ante quem. Which is interesting in itself.

As for spin's comments:

I think it makes a lot of sense--if you read Tacitus vs. Severus, it looks as though Severus is just editing out whatever is unnecessary or in his eyes slanderous in the Tacitus passage. What does he do with the remnants? He uses them to describe the gnostics! This is just a form of humorous irony. Why wouldn't Severus use it to attack gnostics?

Andrew, what does this sentence mean from the OP:

?