Re: Tacitus and the Christians (Re: Will the real Biblical Israel ...

On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Nov 9, 2:49 pm, Tiglath <te...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 8, 4:37 pm, ADR <aretz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is no indication at all that the people of Rome
regarded Nero as the man responsible for the fire.

There is no indication at all for people like you, who never went near
a history book.

But when you do go near a history book, it might be a good idea to
read more than just one paragraph from it.


You expect me to find Cassius Dio in the Annals by reading more than
one paragraph past my excerpts?


<snip> "For a
rumor had spread that, while the city was burning, Nero had gone on
his private stage and, comparing modern calamities with ancient, had
sung of the destruction of Troy."

Cassius Dio says (62.18.1) that Nero ascended the roof of the Palatine
palace while in a lyre-player's garb (_kitharodikēn labōn_) and sang
the "Capture of Ilium," while Suetonius claims (_Nero_38.2) that he
sang it while atop the tower of Maecenas (in the Gardens of Maecenas)
dressed in his stage costume (_scaenico habitu_). Notice that Tacitus
has Nero singing "on his private stage," i.e., at a less exhibitionist
venue than the summit of a palace or tower. Who, then, are we to
believe as to where he was or what he wore?

Tacitus, in any event, does specify that the alleged incident was a
rumor.

Since when is a rumor not an indication?




<snip> "This new conflagration caused
additional ill-feeling because it started on Tigellinus' estate in the
Aemilian district. For people believed that Nero was ambitious to
found a new city to be called after himself."

   -- The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, Book XV.

Yet if you would have read the entire account of the fire you would
have seen that Tacitus relates that some sources attributed the fire
to accident and others blamed Nero,

How does that make the former an indication and the latter not an
indication?




Without certainty, then, we can only say that perhaps Nero was
innocent or maybe he was guilty of burning Rome.

You are barking at the wrong tree. NOWHERE I have even suggested that
one version of the story is more certain than another.

I suggest you read more than one line of the argument you are trying
to refute before you let loose.

As any careful reader can see, I objected to the statement.

"There is no indication at all that the people of Rome regarded Nero
as the man responsible for the fire."

It is a false statement.

There are CERTAINLY such indications, even if there are others for a
different opinion.



Yes, there are "clear indications" in Tacitus that people suspected
Nero,

So what's your beef if I object to some goober misinforming the
readers saying that there are no such indications AT ALL?



but there are not clear indications that people in reality
suspected him.

But is it not often the case that historian will report several
versions of the same story and leave us holding the baby?




The dislike of Nero by the aristocrats was never shared
by the common people, and in fact he was enormously popular among > the latter, even decades after his death. Read up on the subject.


No patronizing, please. This post is a strawman.

I never said anything about any particular version having primacy over
another, though I find using Tacitus political inclinations as the
likelihood that he lied a bit of a reach and I see no better evidence
for it now either.



To automatically brand a liar one of the most respected Roman
historians just because of his perceived political inclinations is a
bit of a reach.

Hyperbole doesn't mask your unfamiliarity with this aspect of
historiography. It is established that information in Tacitus (and all
the ancient sources, for that matter) must be scrutinized.

Thanks for that insight, Chris. Which end of the egg should I suck
on? You forgot to tell me.



While he is
more reliable than most sources, his history has many factual errors,

That's cheating. Your suggestion that Tacitus is not to be trusted
does clearly not refer to an unwitting error. You clearly ascribe it
to his politics, which it would make it a willful deception. That is,
he is a dishonest historian who besmirches Nero for no good reason.
That's no error.


and elsewhere he dissumaltes or doesn't tell the whole story,
resulting in distorted and misleading accounts of persons and events.

Those passages appear to me pretty clear and the matter pretty simple,
either there was a public feeling that Nero did it or there was not.
(See Indication #1 and Indication #2 -- there is little ambiguity
there.


He shares the biases and prejudices of his class and is a creature of
his time (one that culturally is more alien to us in the modern era
than might be readily apparent).

All historians have biases. I specifically asked, what evidence do
you have -- not of innocent errors, or ambiguous narrative -- but of
outright fabrication in THIS particular passage from Tacitus, other
than idle speculation, now twice repeated?




Let us first read up a bit more about topics we wish to make
categorical pronouncements on.


Let us, by all means. Though, since when asking for evidence is a
"categorical pronouncement"?

The only think I have pronounce categorically here is that

"There is no indication at all that the people of Rome
regarded Nero as the man responsible for the fire"

is just another piece of bunk, and since you seem to agree, what the
heck was your post about?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tacitus and the Christians (Re: Will the real Biblical Israel ...
    ... There is no indication at all for people like you, ... a history book. ... Nero also constructed emergency accommodation for the destitute ... fire, it has nothing to do with whether such indications exist. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Our Neronian Leader
    ... in history), this most transparent of Presidents, after opening the ... If only the Roman Emperor Nero had had such an over-the-top adoring ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Tacitus and the Christians (Re: Will the real Biblical Israel ...
    ... regarded Nero as the man responsible for the fire. ... But when you do go near a history book, it might be a good idea to ... Notice that Tacitus ... it has nothing to do with whether such indications exist. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Who Is 666?
    ... written NRWN QSR or NRW KSR in Hebrew. ... normal to write Nero as we do in English, ... part because our method of doing history had not developed yet and in ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Logic in Schools
    ... > The alleged violinist was Nero, not Caesar. ... My knowledge of history is shockingly inadequate; ...
    (sci.logic)