spin wrote:
Here are some of the problems with Annals 15.44:
1. The testimonium taciteum is not part of the discourse that Tacitus constructed against Nero. It is tacked on with little interest in maintaining the discourse against Nero and it took no account of the previous statement that ended the discourse by focusing the reader's attention on the fact that the fire seems to have started via an order (implicitly from Nero).
The description of the fire started in A.15.38. He analyzes the impact of the fire in A.15.41. In A.15.42 Tacitus then describes the new palace of Nero built after the fire as well as further wasteful measures he enacted, but which got nowhere. A.15.43 talks about Nero's city reconstruction measures. We finally arrive at the close of the discourse:
"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, where water was procured to sprinkle the temple 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."
What Tacitus has done, and he has consciously constructed his text with meticulous care, was to place the relevant post-dated facts, including the passage about the reconstruction, before this conclusion. This conclusion is masterly:
"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."
There is no escaping the fact that Nero is guilty of starting the fire. Tacitus doesn't need to say it. His statement has all the subtlety of the snake. Having displayed his art so well, is he going to waste that effort to insert a nugget concerning christian martyrdoms, a distraction from his condemnation of Nero?
In the narrative, this treatment of the christians is just another human effort already covered by the fact that all human efforts didn't banish the sinister belief. Why it was not placed before the conclusion is unfathomable for the quality of the rest of the narrative. The conclusion about the conflagration being "the result of an order" is drowned by a description of christian martyrdoms and all of Tacitus's work pinning the fire on Nero has dissipated into a gorefest of christians going crispy crackly into the night.
....
4. It is a passage about something Nero attempted in order to dispel the rumours that he'd started the fire, after Tacitus stated that
none of his efforts could dispel the rumours.
The description of the fire started in A.15.38. He analyzes the impact of the fire in A.15.41. In A.15.42 Tacitus then describes the new palace of Nero built after the fire as well as further wasteful measures he enacted, but which got nowhere. A.15.43 talks about Nero's city reconstruction measures. We finally arrive at the close of the discourse:
"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, where water was procured to sprinkle the temple 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."
What Tacitus has done, and he has consciously constructed his text with meticulous care, was to place the relevant post-dated facts, including the passage about the reconstruction, before this conclusion. This conclusion is masterly:
"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."
There is no escaping the fact that Nero is guilty of starting the fire. Tacitus doesn't need to say it. His statement has all the subtlety of the snake. Having done that he's going to waste that effort to insert a distraction about christian martyrdoms, isn't he? In the narrative, this treatment of the christians is just another human effort after describing the fact that all human efforts didn't banish the sinister belief.
The conclusion about the conflagration being "the result of an order" is drowned by a description of christian martyrdoms and all of Tacitus's work pinning the fire on Nero has dissipated into a gorefest of christians going crispy crackly into the night.
I have gone back and forth on the Testimonium Taciteum for a very long time now, and its status in limbo remains mostly unchanged to this day. I do, however, wish to make a start by addressing the easiest of spin's reasons for doubt: arguments #1 and #4, quoted above and originally
posted elsewhere on this forum.
Item #1 depends upon a highly subjective evaluation. After pointing out a particularly great sentence (the greatness of which I do freely acknowledge), spin asks, seemingly rhetorically, about whether Tacitus is "going to waste that effort to insert a nugget concerning Christian martyrdoms." There is not much to say about this kind of argument. Yes? No? Maybe? More meat is required: comparisons or contrasts with other Tacitean paragraphs of similar scope and character, for example. The only part of #1 which is not so subjective is this one:
In the narrative, this treatment of the Christians is just another human effort already covered by the fact that all human efforts didn't banish the sinister belief. Why it was not placed before the conclusion is unfathomable for the quality of the rest of the narrative.
But by this point argument #1 is already leaning into argument #4, and spin seems to have misconstrued the structure of Tacitus' prose in this section:
Annals 15.43-44:
43 Of Rome meanwhile, so much as was left unoccupied by his mansion, was not built up, as it had been after its burning by the Gauls, without any regularity or in any fashion, but with rows of streets according to measurement, with broad thoroughfares, with a restriction on the height of houses, with open spaces, and the further addition of colonnades, as a protection to the frontage of the blocks of tenements. These colonnades Nero promised to erect at his own expense, and to hand over the open spaces, when cleared of the debris, to the ground landlords. He also offered rewards proportioned to each person's position and property, and prescribed a period within which they were to obtain them on the completion of so many houses or blocks of building. He fixed on the marshes of Ostia for the reception of the rubbish, and arranged that the ships which had brought up corn by the Tiber, should sail down the river with cargoes of this rubbish. The buildings themselves, to a certain height, were to be solidly constructed, without wooden beams, of stone from Gabii or Alba, that material being impervious to fire. And to provide that the water which individual license had illegally appropriated, might flow in greater abundance in several places for the public use, officers were appointed, and everyone was to have in the open court the means of stopping a fire. Every building, too, was to be enclosed by its own proper wall, not by one common to others. These changes which were liked for their utility, also added beauty to the new city. Some, however, thought that its old arrangement had been more conducive to health, inasmuch as the narrow streets with the elevation of the roofs were not equally penetrated by the sun's heat, while now the open space, unsheltered by any shade, was scorched by a fiercer glow. 44 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 no human effort [sed non ope humana], not the lavish gifts of the emperor or the propitiations of the gods [non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis], banished 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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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.
Tacitus has, in chapter 43, described Nero's lavish gifts: colonnades to be erected at his own expense, for example, and rewards proportioned to each person's position and property. He has next described, in the first half of chapter 44, Nero's propitiations of the gods: consultation of the Sibylline books, sacred banquets, and nightly vigils. Now he gives us that sentence which spin rightly characterizes as masterly: "But no human effort, not the lavish gifts of the emperor or the propitiations of the gods, banished the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." These are
human efforts: the usual kinds of things that an emperor would do to save his reputation and, moreover, to restore Rome itself. But now Nero is going to resort to something not quite so human, as it were, in the second half of chapter 44.
In
Annals 6.19 Tacitus, in his description of a particularly savage set of actions undertaken by Tiberius, writes that "the force of terror had utterly extinguished the sense of
human fellowship [
humanae commercium], and, with the growth
of cruelty [
saevitia], pity was thrust aside." In this sentence
human fellowship is contrasted with being
cruel (we retain this same sense of contrast between "human" and "inhuman" in English, as well). Likewise,
Annals 15.44 is contrasting the ordinary human means of appeasing a populace (offering gifts to the people and propitiations to the gods) with the far crueler tactic of attacking a segment of the population which, however vile on their own merits, had nothing to do with the fire.
The structure is:
- Nero tries offering gifts in the form of (re)construction projects and (re)compensatory measures.
- Nero tries publicly propitiating the gods.
- No such human effort seems to work.
- So Nero resorts to something cruel (something "inhuman" as opposed to "human").
Arguments #1 and #4, then, so far fail to persuade me in any way. The other arguments (#2-3 and #5-7) I am still considering; and they do not appear to succumb so immediately to a simple analysis of the passage itself.