Geskiedenis Podcasts

Tacitus (Gesigsrekonstruksie)

Tacitus (Gesigsrekonstruksie)


Bog liggaam

A bog liggaam is 'n menslike kadawer wat natuurlik in 'n turfmoer gemummifiseer is. Sulke liggame, soms bekend as bog mense, is geografies en chronologies wydverspreid, en dateer uit tussen 8000 vC en die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. [1] Die verenigende faktor van die moerasliggame is dat dit in turf gevind is en gedeeltelik behoue ​​bly, maar die werklike bewaringsvlakke wissel baie van perfek bewaarde tot blote geraamtes. [2]

Anders as die meeste ou menslike oorskot, behou moerasliggame dikwels hul vel en interne organe as gevolg van die ongewone toestande in die omliggende gebied. Gekombineer, baie suur water, lae temperatuur en 'n gebrek aan suurstof behou hul vel, maar dit is baie bruin. Alhoewel die vel goed bewaar is, is die bene gewoonlik nie die gevolg van die ontbinding van die kalsiumfosfaat deur die suurheid van die turf nie. [3] Die suur toestande van hierdie moerasse maak voorsiening vir die behoud van materiale soos vel, hare, naels, wol en leer wat almal die proteïen keratien bevat. [3]

Die oudste moerasliggaam is die skelet van Koelbjerg Man uit Denemarke, wat gedateer is tot 8000 v.C., gedurende die Mesolitiese tydperk. [1] Die oudste vleeslike vleisliggaam is die van Cashel Man, wat dateer uit 2000 vC tydens die Bronstydperk. [4] Die oorgrote meerderheid moerasliggame - insluitend voorbeelde soos Tollund Man, Grauballe Man en Lindow Man - dateer uit die Ystertydperk en is gevind in noordwestelike Europese lande, veral Denemarke, Duitsland, Nederland, die Verenigde Koninkryk, Swede, Pole en Ierland. [5] [6] [7] Sulke moerasliggame uit die Ystertydperk illustreer tipies 'n aantal ooreenkomste, soos gewelddadige sterftes en 'n gebrek aan klere, wat argeoloë laat glo het dat hulle doodgemaak en in die moeras neergelê is as deel van 'n wydverspreide kulturele tradisie van menslike opoffering of die teregstelling van misdadigers. [1] [8] Mossen kon inderdaad gesien word as liminale plekke wat positief verbind is met 'n ander wêreld, wat besmette voorwerpe wat andersins gevaarlik is vir die lewe, kan verwelkom. [8] Meer onlangse teorieë beweer dat moeraspersone as sosiale uitgeworpenes of "hekse" beskou word, as wettige gyselaars wat in woede gedood is weens gebroke verdragsreëlings, of as slagoffers van 'n ongewone dood wat uiteindelik volgens tradisionele gebruike in moerasse begrawe is. [8]

Die Duitse wetenskaplike Alfred Dieck publiseer 'n katalogus van meer as 1850 moerasliggame wat hy tussen 1939 en 1986 getel het [9] [10], maar die meeste is nie geverifieer deur dokumente of argeologiese vondste nie [11] en 'n ontleding van die werk van Dieck deur Duitse argeoloë uit 2002 tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat baie van sy werk onbetroubaar was. [11] Om die bevindings van Dieck van meer as 1400 ontdekkings van die moerasweë teen te werk, blyk dit dat die aantal moerasliggame na 'n meer onlangse studie nader aan 122 is. [12] Die nuutste moerasliggame is dié van soldate wat in die vleilande van die Sowjetunie tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. [1]


Heilige toorn, 4

In die Ou Noorse mitologie het die einherjar beteken letterlik 'leër van een' of 'diegene wat alleen veg' diegene wat in die geveg gesterf het en deur valkyries na Valhalla gebring word.


'N Veral kwaliteit wat toegeskryf word aan die berserkergang besit was die arms van die teëstander, wat waarskynlik impliseer dat die berserkers so vinnig, so onaantasbaar was en sodanige terreur in hul vyande geïnspireer het dat dit lyk asof hulle verlam was van vrees of dat hul houe nie effektief was nie.

Dit is ook baie waarskynlik dat die woede -aura van 'n laaiende groep berserkers op groot afstand deur vyandelike soldate gevoel is asof dit 'n uitgestrekte golf was, soos die Romeinse historikus Tacitus geskryf het terwyl hy praat van 'n Germaanse manbund wie se lede geroep is Harii, 'n woord wat onder Iraniërs en Indo-Iraniërs beteken het ‘ blondines ’ en wat verband hou met die einherjar van Valhala:

Dit is genoeg om die kragtigste te noem: die Harii, die Helvecones, die Manimi, die Helisii en die Nahanarvali. Onder hierdie laaste word 'n bos van onheilige heiligheid getoon. 'N Priester in vroulike kleredrag is verantwoordelik daarvoor. Maar die gode word in die Romeinse taal beskryf as Castor en Pollux. Dit is inderdaad die eienskappe van die godheid, die naam Alcis. Hulle het geen afbeeldings of selfs 'n spoor van vreemde bygeloof nie, maar dit is as broers en as jeugdiges dat die gode aanbid word.

Die Harii, behalwe dat hulle sterk is in vergelyking met die stamme wat net opgesom is, wreed soos hulle is, benut hul natuurlike woede met behulp van kuns en geleenthede. Hulle skilde is swart, hul liggame is gekleur. Hulle het donker nagte vir die geveg gekies, en deur die angs en somber aspek van hul doodsagtige gasheer, slaan hulle terreur in die vyand, wat nooit hul vreemde en byna infernale voorkoms kan trotseer nie. Want in alle gevegte is dit die oog wat eers oorwin word [1].

Ons sien hier die belangrikheid van die simboliek oor die donker onder hierdie mans. Die nag is noodsaaklik in hierdie simboliek, want dit simboliseer die donker eeu, hierdie donker winter waarin ons vir goed of sleg gebore is. Die dag, met die sonstrale, die goud, is voordelig vir die wil, die moed, die bewuste stryd, om die spies in die vyand te dryf, om die swaard in 'n woord in die aarde te steek, om te besit, om oor te neem. Die dag verteenwoordig die regterhand die orde, die ritueel en die ‘droë manier ’. Die nag, aan die ander kant, met sy duisternis, maan, sterre, water en silwer is meer voordelig vir towerkuns, tot 'n sekere chaos, om toegelaat te word om besit te word, om arms na die hemel te lig in plaas daarvan om dit in die aarde te laat sak en daarom hou dit meer verband met die linkerhand en die ‘wet manier ’.

Aangesien die mens nie meer 'n god is nie, moet hy daarna streef om ten minste 'n blinde instrument van die gode te word. Hiervoor moet hy leeggemaak word van alle egosentriese individualiteit om die goddelike uitbarsting, dit wil sê, Odin te versadig om hom aan te raak met die punt van sy spies ’. En die eerste manier om dit te bereik was deur die daarstelling van streng dissipline, asketisme en organisasie.

Laat ons onthou, met betrekking tot die belangrikheid van die nag, waarin Adolf Hitler self gepraat het Mein Kampf oor die verskil in die effek van sy toesprake tussen die skare soggens en saans. Vir hom was die middae, en veral die aande, die ideale oomblik om 'n toespraak te hou en sy magnetisme te bevestig. Laat ons ook daarop let dat die oorheersende kleure in die SS swart en silwer in die SS was. Simbolies was hulle snags bedek met duisternis, donderweer en maan- en sterlig.

Wie ook al eens in besit was van die berserkergang was reeds gemerk met 'n leeftydsteken. Van toe af kon die beswyming nie net voor die geveg aangeroep word nie, maar kon dit ook skielik op oomblikke van vrede en rustigheid op hom val, wat hom binne 'n paar sekondes verander in 'n bal van haat, adrenalien en submenslike uitroepe wat strewe na vernietiging .

Dus, Egil ’s Saga beskryf hoe Egil se pa, 'n berserker, skielik die besit van die gely het berserkergang terwyl hy rustig 'n balspel speel met sy seun en nog 'n klein een. Die vegter, verskriklik opgewonde en brullend soos 'n dier, het sy seun se vriend gegryp, hom in die lug gelig en hom met so 'n krag neergeslaan dat hy onmiddellik gesterf het met al die bene van sy liggaam gebreek. Daarna het hy na sy eie seun gegaan, maar hy is gered deur 'n diensmeisie wat op sy beurt dood voor die besetenes geval het.

In die sages is die verhale van berserkers besaai met tragedies waarin die onbeheersdes berserkergang draai teen die naaste aan die besetenes. As ons 'n Griekse ekwivalent moes vind, sou ons dit in die figuur van Hercules hê, wat tydens 'n aanval van woede sy eie vrou Megara en die twee kinders wat hy by haar gehad het, vermoor het, wat sy twaalf take as boete gemotiveer het om sy sonde te verlig. .

Op die gebied van mitologie het ons baie voorbeelde van die woede van die berserkers. Die Saga van koning Hrólf Kraki praat van die held Berserker Bjarki, wat vir die koning geveg het en wat in 'n geveg in 'n beer verander is. Hierdie beer het meer vyande doodgemaak as die vyf uitgesoekte koningskampioene. Pyle en wapens het van hom afgestorm, en hy het mans en perde afgebreek uit die magte van die vyand, koning Hjorvard, met sy tande en kloue alles wat in sy pad staan, geskeur, sodat paniek die leër van die vyand aangegryp het en hul geledere chaoties verbrokkel het. .

Hierdie legende, wat nog steeds 'n legende is, verteenwoordig die roem wat die berserkers in die Noorde as klein groepies verwerf het, maar deur hul dapperheid in staat was om die uitslag van 'n groot geveg te bepaal.

Nou, wat is die verklaring vir hierdie gebeure, wat die normale ver oorskry? Hoe moet ons die berserkergang? In ons dae wou diegene wat altyd met 'n wrokige wantroue kyk na enige manifestasie van krag en gesondheid, dit verneder. Vir baie van hulle was die berserkers bloot gemeenskappe van epileptici, skisofrenies en ander geestesongesteldes.

Hierdie belaglike verduideliking is heeltemal onbevredigend, aangesien epilepsie en skisofrenie patologieë is waarvan die gevolge nie vir 'n geveg soos die berserkers gedoen kan word nie, en onder epileptiese of psigotiese episodes is dit onmoontlik om dapper optrede uit te voer of oorlogsugtige heroïsme te toon. 'N Epileptikus berokken homself meer skade deur sy tong te byt en op die grond te val as om die geledere van 'n groot vyandelike leër te vernietig, en kan ook deur 'n enkele persoon verminder word. Ander het voorgestel dat die berserkers, soos in die films, alliansies was van individue wat genetiese mutasies ondergaan het, of die oorlewendes van 'n ou verdwene Germaanse geslag, georganiseer in die vorm van sektariese gemeenskappe. Ander neem selfs die ‘ sjamaanse ’ verklaring in ag, waarvolgens berserkers in besit was van die totemgees van 'n beer of 'n wolf.

[1] ‘Germania ’ in Germania en Agricola deur Tacitus, vertaal deur Alfred J. Church, Ostara Publications (2016), bladsy 17.


Inleiding Aan Die geskiedenis van Cornelius Tacitus deur die vertaler

In die onrustige geskiedenis van Europa lyk die Romeinse Ryk as 'n era van vergelykende orde, vrede en wettigheid. Dit kan beswaarlik nalaat om 'n sekere bekoring uit te oefen te midde van die onrus van die huidige eeu. As die gemiddelde mens tevrede is om die Romeine deur die oë van die romanskrywer en filmregisseur te sien, sal die nuuskierige waarnemer vrae vra. Hy wil 'n bietjie nader aan die bronne van ons kennis kom. Hy gaan in die eerste plek oor na The Annals van die senator Cornelius Tacitus. Die Annale, wat nou vermink is, bestaan ​​oorspronklik uit sestien of agtien kort 'boeke', wat strek oor die vier-en-vyftig jaar van die toetreding van die tweede keiser, Tiberius, tot die dood van die vyfde, Nero (14-68 nC). Nie minder leersaam is egter 'n vroeëre werk van Tacitus, die geskiedenis. Dit handel oor die drie kortstondige keisers van 69 n.C., Galba, Otho en Vitellius, en die drie keisers van die opvolgende Flaviese dinastie (Vespasian, 69-79 Titus, 79-81 en Domitian, 81-96). Oorspronklik twaalf of veertien boeke lank, bestaan ​​die geskiedenisse tot die omvang van die eerste vier en 'n gedeelte van die vyfde, wat die 'Jaar van die vier keisers'69 nC en ongeveer nege maande 70 nC. Dit lyk asof Tacitus die werk al in 98 nC beplan het, en dit is moontlik tussen 105 en 108 na AD gepubliseer.

Hieruit volg dat die omvang van die behandeling meer vrygewig was in die geskiedenis as in die annale, en dat dit die vrygewigste van almal was in die oorlewende gedeelte van die voormalige wat in die huidige bundel vertaal is. Die rede vir hierdie oorvloed is nie moeilik om te raai nie. Die jaar 69, 'so 'n lang, maar enkele jaar'soos Tacitus dit vroeër genoem het, bied 'n magdom dramatiese voorvalle. Na die stewige en welvarende veiligheid van die eerste of Julio-Claudiaanse dinastie, gaan die grond oop. Die groot gebou van die wêreldryk word geskud. Pretender styg teen pretender. Die grensleërs trek na Rome uit Spanje, Duitsland, die Balkan en die Ooste. Die grense self word deur die barbaar oortree. Daar is sameswerings van die paleis, skielike sluipmoorde, wanhopige gevegte, dade van heldhaftigheid en volheid. Die toneel verskuif voortdurend van die een kant van die ryk na die ander, van Brittanje na Palestina, van Marokko na die Kaukasus. Drie keisers — Galba, Otho en Vitellius — bereik hul einde. Die vierde, Vespasianus, oorleef deur die noodlot of toeval of verdienste, en stig sy dinastie ten goede of siek. Hier, in die botsing van Romeins met Romeins, het dit gelyk asof die beskaafde wêreld op die oomblik besig was om te vergaan. Oud of modern, die leser wat hom in die geskiedenis as 'n verhaal verlustig, kan die vertelling skaars vaal vind, al is die verteller ook onkundig. En die verteller is Tacitus. Hy kom tot sy tema, en as stilis, staatsman en kritikus van die menslike natuur het hy die vaardigheid en kennis om woorde lewendig te maak.

In al die verslae van Rome kan daar skaars nog 'n jaar wees wat so vol rampspoed is, of wat die krag en swakheid van die Romeine so duidelik toon. In die geskiedenis kan ons gebeure van maand tot maand, van dag tot dag, soms selfs van uur tot uur, volg. Ons staan ​​naby die prentjie. Die doek is beperk, maar die besonderhede fassineer. Daar ontbreek ook nie breër massas en verre perspektiewe nie.

In die eerste plek kom ons by Tacitus wat die toneel moet versier. Die akteurs is talryk, die plot is reeds dik. Hy begin op 1 Januarie 69, die jaar van die noodlot, met 'n terugblik op die ses maande wat so verloop het sedert Nero se dood, ons moet ook terugkyk, en 'n entjie verder.

Sedert die Slag van Actium in 31 v.C. word die Romeinse wêreld regeer deur Augustus en sy gesin, die Julio-Claudians. Die heerser word imperator ('bevelvoerder') of princeps ('leier') genoem. Die prinsipaal is 'n outokrasie met 'n paar republikeinse kunswerke. Net soos in die dae van die republiek, bly 'n hiërargie van verkose amptenare ('landdroste') steeds hul amp in Rome en tree daarna vir langer of korter tyd as leërbevelvoerders of provinsiale goewerneurs op. Die senaat, 'n kamer wat uit hierdie amptenare bestaan ​​en ongeveer 500 lede uitmaak, hanteer steeds 'n aansienlike massa openbare sake. Baie ryk en belangrike provinsies, met Italië self, lê steeds onder sy toesig. Maar die gewapende magte word nou beheer deur die keiser, en saam met hulle die provinsies waarin hierdie magte gestasioneer is, meestal aan die periferie van die ryk. Dit is Brittanje, die Rynland, die Danubiese lande, Egipte en die Ooste. In 'n staat waar 'n amptelike loopbaan wissel tussen burgerlike en militêre aanstellings, is die beskerming van die keiser noodsaaklik om te vorder. In die vereniging van princeps en senaat is eersgenoemde onvermydelik die dominante vennoot. As rem of aansporing hang die effektiwiteit van die senaat af van sy eie samehorigheid en openbare gees. Wat die 'mense van Rome', die volle burgers wat in Italië woon of versprei is in die ryk, het hul politieke mag byna tot niks gekrimp, en die van nie-Romeine het nog nooit bestaan ​​nie, behalwe op die vlak van die plaaslike politiek. Die posisies van uitnemendheid word beklee deur senatore, wat in die privaat lewe ryk landgenote is en deur ridders (die 'ruiterorde'), wat 'n minder verhewe geboorte besit en deur 'n laer eiendomskwalifikasie begrens word. Beide hierdie bevele bied amptelike loopbane aan waarin verdienste in gereelde, maar buigsame promosiepatrone kan styg. Ons moet 'n klas byvoeg wat nie minder belangrik is nie, dié van die keiserlike vrymanne, oud-slawe, dikwels van Oosterse oorsprong, talentvolle manne wat as keiserlike staatsamptenare optree onder die onmiddellike beheer van die keiser.

Augustus en Tiberius was versigtige en intelligente heersers, onder wie Rome en haar heerskappy floreer het. Die kalmte van 'n welwillende outokrasie het die koors en angs van die vorige eeu van die vrye republiek opgevolg. Maar Gaius, Claudius en Nero was minder suksesvol. Eksentriek of megalomaan op hul verskillende maniere het hierdie mans, en veral Nero, die Julio-Claudiaanse dinastie en tot 'n sekere mate die prinsipaal self in oneer gebring. Die teregstelling in 67 nC van 'n gesiene bevelvoerder in die Ooste, Domitius Corbulo, was 'n aanduiding van die soort dankbaarheid wat prominente Romeine van 'n verdagte en ongebalanseerde tiran kon verwag. Daar was sameswerings. In Maart 68 kom die opstand van die goewerneur van Sentraal -Gallië, Julius Vindex, self van Galliese oorsprong. Maar daar was 'n belangriker wanbestandheid. Begin April word die goewerneur van Nabye Spanje, Sulpicius Galba, lid van 'n antieke aristokratiese familie, deur sy troepe as keiser beskou. Vindex, wat slegs 'n plaaslike milisie tot sy beskikking gehad het, is gou verpletter deur die goewerneur van Bo -Duitsland, Verginius Rufus. Maar op 9 Junie het Nero, wat sy posisie wanhopig voel, selfmoord gepleeg. Galba word deur die senaat as prins beskou.

Die geloofsbriewe van 'n historikus wat ons hoofbron vir hierdie tydperk is, moet ondersoek word. By die skryf van die geskiedenis het Tacitus baie voordele geniet. Hy was self 'n senator wie se amptelike loopbaan onder die Flaviane begin en ontwikkel het. Hy moes noodwendig uit die eerste hand baie van die politieke geskiedenis van die tyd geken het. In die jaar van die vier keisers was hy slegs 'n seuntjie van veertien. Maar bronne was natuurlik volop. Die gebeure van 69 nC het 'n ryk literatuur in Grieks en Latyn ontlok, baie daarvan neigend en propagandisties. Daar is geen rede om te betwyfel dat Tacitus hierdie geskrewe bronne getrou geraadpleeg het nie, met inagneming van ooreenkomste en teenstrydighede. Slegs twee skrywers word by die naam genoem, ander kan raai. Maar in 98-105 nC, toe Tacitus sy werk beplan en skryf, was mondelinge getuienis beskikbaar by baie oorlewendes. So was Vestricius Spurinna, 'n soldaat met 'n lang en vooraanstaande loopbaan wie se begin Tacitus grasieus opmerk. Soos baie ander moontlike informante, was Spurinna vriendelik met die jonger Plinius, en dus waarskynlik met sy vriend Tacitus. Plinius praat hartlik van die ou man se karakter en liefde vir herinnering. Baie van die gedetailleerde inligting in Boeke twee en drie oor gebeure in Ligurië Tacitus het moontlik teruggehou uit herinnerings aan gesprekke met sy skoonpa Agricola, wat destyds daar was. Sommige staatsdokumente was beslis beskikbaar vir iemand wat 'n senator was, veral die Romeinse Hansard, en die transaksies van die senaat het duidelik in boek vier goed gebruik geword. Dit blyk dat hy aangevul is deur die bewyse van oorlewende deelnemers.

Hoe pligsgetrou en onbevooroordeeld is hy? Kan ons op die feite staatmaak, indien nie die interpretasies wat hy verskaf nie? Elke antwoord op hierdie vraag moet gekonfronteer word met die basiese moeilikheid dat die bronne van die historikus, beide primêr en sekondêr, vir ons verlore gaan. Ons het nie die transaksies van die senaat of die historiese werke van die ouderling Plinius of Messalla nie. Onafhanklike bewyse — 'n muntstuk, 'n inskripsie, 'n argeologiese vonds — is te gering om 'n effektiewe maatstaf te bied. Vergelykings met parallelle owerhede is gunstig vir Tacitus. Oor die algemeen moet ons volgens interne bewyse beoordeel.

Geen leser van die geskiedenis kan twyfel dat die skrywer se emosies betrokke is by sy verslag oor die onlangse en omstrede verlede nie, met die oog op die hede en op die ondeurgrondelike en miskien onheilspellende toekoms. Daar is koning Charles se koppe, temas wat met verdagte en voorspelbare frekwensies herhaal word: die onverantwoordelikheid en korrupsie van die metropool, die oormatige invloed van keiserlike vrymanne, die selfsugtige ambisies van mededingende hofmanne, 'n senaat wat ontevrede en hulpeloos is, 'n keiser wat agterdogtig en onseker is. 'N Paar klein stukkies in feite kan opgespoor word, maar dit is min. Die liefde vir spoed en bondigheid, of 'n aanname van kennis by die leser, lei tot weglatings. Daar is sinne van Delphic dubbelsinnigheid en antiteses wat meer opvallend as duidelik is. Epigram is waarskynlik nie die beste middel van die waarheid nie. Ons mag, terwyl ons geniet, 'n slinkse insinuasie betreur. Maar hierdie gebreke, as dit defekte is, lê op die oppervlak. Hoe meer ons Tacitus bestudeer, hoe groter word ons agting.

Dit sou egter optimisties wees om te veronderstel dat sy historiese navorsing meer as oppervlakkig was. Dit is waar dat hy sy vriend, die jonger Plinius, geraadpleeg het oor die omstandighede van die dood van laasgenoemde se oom tydens die uitbarsting van Vesuvius in 79 nC: die bron was uitstekend en byderhand. Op geskilgebiede vertel hy egter meer as een keer dat navrae moeilik of onuitvoerbaar sou wees. Dit lyk vir hom sy taak om die grofste leuens van partydige historici implisiet of eksplisiet aan die kaak te stel. Toe botsende weergawes die oplossing verbyster, was dit die regverdigste en beslis die maklikste om die alternatiewe te noem, miskien met 'n wenk van wat die skrywer self as die geloofwaardigste beskou het in die lig van die algemene waarskynlikheid. Hierdie voorkeur word dikwels, maar nie altyd nie, gegee aan die minder vleiende weergawe.

Aangesien Tacitus nie op sy eie navorsing kan terugval nie, bly daar twyfel oor baie klein en belangrike kwessies. Was die akklamasie van Vespasian ontwerp of spontaan? Wie was verantwoordelik vir die sak Cremona? Wie vir die afvuur van die amfiteater in Placentia of die Capitol in Rome? Het Vespasianus bygedra tot die aanhitsing van Civilis om in opstand te kom? Was Antonius Primus die slagoffer van Mucianus se jaloesie, of was sy val uit die guns ryklik verdien? Dit en nog vele meer bly duister. Maar die rede is nie net die moeilikheid om die waarheid vas te stel nie. Dit is ook 'n oortuiging dat die waarheid nie eenvoudig is nie. Motiewe is kompleks, toevallig onvoorspelbaar, die noodlot of die gode hoog. Sal dit nie beter wees om, waar daar so baie donker is, die leser te laat nadink nie?

Die akademiese strewe na kennis ter wille van hom het Tacitus, soos vir baie van sy landgenote, 'n gevaarlike vorm van dilettantisme voorgekom. Filosofie is veral verdag as dit nie goeie werke tot gevolg het nie. Mans bestee dikwels hul gawes daaraan, sê hy, in die beskrywing van die karakter van Helvidius Priscus, om gemak en ledigheid onder 'n pretensieuse naam te verdoesel. Diegene wat beweer dat hulle die kuns van lewe leer, kan wolwe in skaapsklere wees, soos Publius Celer, of uit voeling wees met die harde lewenswaarhede, soos Musonius Rufus, wat vrede verkondig het aan mans wat wapens gedra het. So met leer in die algemeen. As die wêreld leiers nodig het, kan studie nie belangstel nie. Geskiedkundiges mag nie oudhede wees nie. Hulle moet deur voorbeelde leer, die kwaad aan die kaak stel en deugde eerbiedig. Die een of ander van die sewe dodelike sondes, trots, hebsug, wellus, afguns, vraatsug, woede en luiheid, waaraan ons 'n agtste kan toevoeg, lafhartigheid stel ons op byna elke bladsy in die geskiedenis. Maar die ondeugdes van die vroeë ryk is ons veral bekend deur die Romeinse vreugde in selfkritiek. In 'n oomblik van somberheid stel Tacitus voor dat die morele klimaat van 69 n.C. sodanig was dat die moontlikheid van 'n vreedsame skikking tussen die Otoniese en Vitelliese magte nogal chimeries was. Dit is 'n spesiale pleidooi, wat deur die konteks ontneem word. Sulke veralgemenings is in elk geval prakties betekenisloos. Hulle behoort tot die tradisie van die Romeinse puritanisme en die leer van progressiewe en galopende agteruitgang uit 'n geïdealiseerde verlede. Dit is in ooreenstemming met hierdie moraliserende houding dat die burgeroorlog minder as 'n politieke gevaar as 'n bewys van die korrupsie van die eeue voorgestel word.

Die begeerte om te preek kom soms naby kwaadwilligheid. Tacitus vind 'n paar goeie dinge om selfs van Vitellius te sê: hy was vrygewig en 'n goeie gesinsman, hoe arm ook al 'n keiser. Maar die historikus druk die aanklag van vraat in die seisoen en buite. Langs die paaie van Italië klap die wiele van sy kommissariaat. Hierdie hoofrede word vroeg, aan die begin van die bewind, getref. Nuus van die opstand van die legioene van Bo -Duitsland uit Galba bereik Vitellius in die goewerneurspaleis in Keulen na donker op 1 Januarie 69: die boodskapper het die hele dag hard gery om die 105 myl van Mainz af te lê. Tacitus kan egter nie die versoeking weerstaan ​​om by te voeg dat Vitellius aan die etenstafel is nie. Die inligting is verniet, die belediging bestudeer. Voordat hulle Rome binnekom, ontvang die Vitelliese troepe 'n kwessie van rantsoene. Niks, sou 'n mens dink, kan meer normaal wees of beter ontwerp om honger of plundering te voorkom nie. Maar dit sal ons moralis nie doen nie. Vitellius, skryf hy, 'was besig met die uitreiking van rantsoene asof hy 'n klompie gladiators versmoor'. Sommige van hierdie absurditeite kan aanneemlik toegeskryf word aan Flaviese pamflette wat gretig is om die omvang van 'n keiser te beklemtoon teen wie Vespasianus in opstand gekom het. Tacitus besef dat baie hedendaagse geskiedenis propagandisties is, maar slaag nie altyd daarin om hom van die invloed daarvan te bevry nie. Van die modder vassit.

Soos Tacitus self erken, is die prentjie ook nie 'n onverskrokke donkerte nie. Die wêreld is stout, maar goeie dade skitter. Die leser word behoorlik herinner aan voorbeelde van patriotisme, lojaliteit, vriendskap, onafhanklikheid van gees, beskeidenheid, moed. Die name van die getroues tot die dood word noukeurig opgeteken, of spyt word uitgespreek as die name vergaan het. Hoe laer die stasie van die held, hoe groter is die bevrediging van sy historikus. Daar word van senatore verwag om 'n voorbeeld te stel; hulle doen dit dikwels nie. Hoeveel te meer moet ons die opofferende toegewydheid van 'n goewerneurslaaf of die moed van 'n weerlose vrou uit Ligurië bewonder!

Die verhaal van 69-70 nC is 'n komplekse web van kontemporêre gebeurtenisse wat wyd in die ruimte geskei is, maar tog 'n oorsaaklike of chronologiese verband met mekaar het. Hulle interaksie moet duidelik gemaak word. Seleksie, groepering, rangskikking en klem stel die historikus voor baie probleme en geleenthede. Tacitus oorheers die chaos met 'n onveranderlike hand. Die annalistiese tradisie van die Romeinse geskiedskrywing het dit natuurlik gemaak dat elke jaar ingevoer moet word deur die vermelding van sy konsuls, dit wil sê die datum daarvan. Binne die jaar was dit nodig om 'n kompromie te vind tussen twee teenstrydige ideale en 'n streng chronologiese volgorde en die groepering van gebeure in episodes. Tacitus se metode is om ons 'n opeenvolging van langer of korter te bied 'hoofstukke': die moord op Galba, die opmars na Rome, die Jode, ensovoorts. Saak wat saamhang, is onwillig om sonder sterk redes uit te breek. Naburige hoofstukke gaan mekaar vooraf, slaag of oorvleuel mekaar betyds. Oorgange word dikwels behoorlik bestuur; die leser beweeg in verbeelding van plek tot plek in die geselskap van keiserlike koeriers. Daar is verbasend min eksplisiete datums, en ons word nie eers vertel nie, alhoewel ons kan aflei wanneer die gevegte van Cremona geveg is, en dit ook, ondanks die streng teregwysing wat Vitellius toegedien het omdat hy 'n noodlottige herdenking vergeet het —dat die gevegte van die Allia en Cremera. Tog is die historikus altyd bewus van sy tydskaal, en ondersoek toon dat hy getrou daaraan is en dat dit wesenlik korrek is. Literêre kritici is soms verbaas oor die skielike en kort indringing van Titus aan die begin van boek twee. Sou dit nie na 'n latere stadium van die opkoms van Vespasianus oorgedra moes word nie? Die waarheid is dat die reis van Titus in die vroeë maande van 69 nC plaasgevind het: dit kan nie tot midsomer uitgestel word nie.

Nadat die rangskikking van sy materiaal beplan was, het dit gebly om dit harmonieus, skerp en met afwisseling in woorde weer te gee. Die hoofkarakters en die keisers en hul belangrikste ondersteuners word op die voorgrond gehou. Hulle opvallende gesindhede word herhaaldelik beklemtoon. Agter hulle staan ​​'n magdom mindere figure, vinnig, maar skerp ingeskets. Spesifieke aandag word geskenk aan die sielkunde van hoop en vrees. Die atmosfeer is hoogs belaai met emosie. Soms grens die verbeeldingryke rekonstruksie aan die tegniek van die historiese romanskrywer. Geen denkbare bron behalwe sy eie verbeelding kan Tacitus die gedagtes vertel het wat deur die gedagtes van Vespasian gegaan het toe hy aarsel voor die noodlottige besluit om in opstand te kom nie. Maar dit is wat die geskiedenis lewendig maak, en geen Romeinse kritikus kon daarvan uitsondering gemaak het nie. Op dieselfde manier, en in ooreenstemming met 'n konvensie van hoë voorouers, word welsprekende en indrukwekkende toesprake met die grootste vryheid uitgevind. Dit dien om sake te verhelder, die eentonigheid van feitelike vertelling te verlig, en laat die redenaar Tacitus onmiddellik in die persoon van sy held en van homself praat. Daar is ander toestelle om die verskeidenheid te beveilig. Sekere terreure van terreur en patos is geskik om te beklemtoon. Opvallende of toevallige frases openbaar die visuele verbeelding van die kunstenaar en die digter. Tacitus ontken homself ook nie die moedswillige afwyking nie: Paphos, Veleda, Serapis, die Jode. Die Jaar van die Vier Keisers het inderdaad oneindige moontlikhede gebied. Toe Tacitus later die geskiedenis van die Julio-Claudians kom skryf het, lyk die lang katalogus van die Tiberiaanse verraadverhore selfs vir hulle verteller vervelig. Hy kyk jammerlik terug na die kleurryke tonele van die geskiedenis:

'N Goed gekonstrueerde boek verberg die kuns van die konstruksie daarvan. Die leser van Tacitus se Latyn is baie meer onmiddellik bewus van sy verbale behendigheid en van 'n styl wat byna sonder ooreenstemming in die literatuur van sy volk is. Die formele patrone en figure wat die bondige en ondubbelsinnige invloede van die Latynse taal toelaat en aanmoedig, word met volmaakte vaardigheid deur Tacitus aangewend. In 'n moderne Engelse omgewing word hierdie versierings parallelisme, variasie, alliterasie, chiasmus en nog 'n dosyn meer, onvermydelik opgeoffer of behou slegs 'n spookagtige bestaan. Hoe ver hulle toegelaat moet word om te oorleef, is 'n kwessie van smaak of vooroordeel waar skaars twee kritici saamstem. Ek het probeer om die kortste, punt en spoed van die oorspronklike so na as moontlik te hou.

My af en toe afwykings van die standaardtekste van Fisher (1910), Giarratano (1939) en Koestermann (1961) is nie opgemerk nie: dit is duidelik vir diegene wat vertroud is met die Latyn, en vir min belangstelling.

Geen vertaler van Tacitus kan sy arbeid sien sonder skuldgevoelens en berou nie. Hy kan bewys dat hy sy slagoffer geslag het. Hy het die oorspronklike onvermydelik beroof van sy eienaardige deug, die lewende woord.


2.3 Tacitus ' oeuvre: opera minora en maiora

14 Vanaf die begin van die Romeinse geskiedskrywing aan die einde van die derde eeu vC het politieke prestasie en gesaghebbende prosa oor historiese gebeure of figure hand aan hand gegaan. Die samestelling van historiese verhale in 'n reeks genres was baie die domein van senatore. Soos Ronald Syme dit stel: 22

Aan die begin is die geskiedenis deur senatore geskryf (eers 'n Fabius, en Cato was die eerste wat die Latynse taal gebruik het). Dit het lank die monopolie van die regerende orde gebly en dit het die vaste afdruk van sy oorsprong behou. Die senator het in volwasse jare sy taak aangepak, met die regte kennis van mans en die regering, 'n skerp en genadelose insig. Taking up the pen, he fought again the old battles of Forum and Curia. Exacerbated by failure or not mollified by worldly success, he asserted a personal claim to glory and survival and, if he wrote in retirement from affairs, it was not always with tranquillity of mind.

  • 23 See Agricola 2, where Tacitus envisions all the pursuits (such as the writing of history) that wer (. )

15 It is thus telling that Tacitus’ literary career begins in earnest only after he had reached the pinnacle of public life: the Agricola of De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae appeared in the year after he held the consulship (AD 98). His literary debut also coincided with a major upheaval at the centre of power. AD 96 saw the end of the Flavian dynasty through the assassination of Domitian and the crowning of Nerva as emperor at the age of 65, after years of loyal service under Nero and the Flavians. Pressure from the Praetorian Guard and the army more generally soon compelled Nerva to adopt Trajan as his eventual successor, and Tacitus’ first literary activities fall within this period of transition and change, which he himself marks out as a watershed in politics and culture. In fact, he explicitly links the demise of Domitian (and his oppressive regime) to the renaissance of creative efforts in the literary sphere.23 His writings in and of themselves thus advertise the current system of government as a good one (or at least an improvement over what had come before) and signal Tacitus’ (new) political allegiances. (Much of the bad press that has come down to us on the last Flavian comes from writers in the reign of Trajan – Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, above all – keen to paint the past in black and the present in white, thereby promoting both the reigning emperors and themselves.)

16 The Agricola is difficult to classify in generic terms. Prima facie, it is a ‘biography’ of his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola but it also sports striking affinities with various forms of historiographical writing, not least the works of Sallust (the last ‘republican’ historiographer) or, in its year-byyear account of Agricola’s governorship of Britain, annalistic history. It also includes a brief ethnographic excursion on the British (10–12). But arguably the most striking features are the three chapters of prologue (1–3) and epilogue (44–46) that Tacitus devotes almost exclusively to an attack on the principate of Domitian, which had just come to a violent end.24 The historical material, the overall outlook, and the timing of the publication all reek of a republican ethos.

  • 25 There was a sinister side to the treatise’s history of reception as it inspired many a German nati (. )

17 Tacitus’ next work builds on the ethnographic pilot paragraphs in the Agricola. Syne Germania of De origine et situ Germanorum is an ethnographic treatise on the German tribes, which he uses as a mirror to reflect on contemporary Rome.25 Soon thereafter Tacitus published the so-called Dialogus (Dialogus de oratoribus), in which he employed yet another genre (the dialogue) to explore whether or not the quality of public oratory had deteriorated under the principate – a traditional preoccupation going back to Cicero who already diagnosed the rise of autocracy as fatal for high-quality speech in the civic domain owing to a disappearance of freedom of expression. These three works are often labelled Tacitus’ opera minora, his ‘minor works.’ They are all ‘historical’ in one way or another and thus set the stage for the two major pieces of historiography: the Geskiedenisse en die Annale.


Long Blog Post: Tacitus’ Annals and the death of Germanicus – Magic in Literary Sources

The death of Germanicus in 19AD, as described by Tacitus in his Annales, highlights the problematic dynamic within Rome’s elite body that had become prevalent with the establishment of the Principate and the rise of an imperial dynasty. With the powers of the emperor lacking a clearly delineated framework, members of the senatorial class and others in the upper echelons of the roman political machine (including the emperor’s own relatives) had to adapt to the new status-quo (Talbert, 1996, p.331-333). Political maneuvering, the forming of alliances and the realization of higher offices were now all inextricably linked to the autocratic one-man rule of the emperor, a person who must neither be challenged nor outdone (Talbert, 1996, p.335-337). Tacitus, whose moral history harks back to Republican values amidst the predominance of Imperial rule, portrays Germanicus as an individual who fails to recognize the danger of his own success in the face of Tiberius’ suspicious nature (Tac. Ann. 2.72 Cass. Dio. Rom. Hist.57.19 ). Indeed, as Germanicus falls victim to the political machinations of his enemies, who did not hesitate to use magic and poison, and subject him to “the worst of deaths” (Tac. Ann. 2.71), Tacitus emphasizes the ruthlessness that had emerged under the new political system.

It is this use of magic in the political realm of the Roman Empire that I hope to explore more fully in my paper. However, the question of what could be considered magic (especially when distinguishing it from religion), or what defines political is a task undertaken by many, most of whom have presented different results, given that both ancient and modern scholars see “magic [as] largely a rhetorical category rather than an analytical one” (Kevin Henry Crow, 339). In the case of Tacitus’ account, both categories are clearly determined. On the one hand the actors are primarily concerned with the preservation of their offices and the powers associated with them. Tiberius is visibly concerned with threats to his position as emperor while Piso can either be seen to act under Tiberius’ instructions, out of his own aspirations for power. Cassius Dio, who provides a similar version of Germanicus’ death in his Romeinse geskiedenis, also places particular emphasis on the political threat of Germanicus’ rise to the authority of his adoptive father (Cass. Dio. Rom. Hist.57.19). In the case of magic, Tacitus (and Dio for that matter) goes about clearly outlining the means which caused Germanicus’ death:


Bronne:

Jackson, Nicholas. "Grauballe Man." Atlas Obscura. Atlas Obscura, 2016. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/grauballe-man

Nicholson Museum. "Bog Bodies: The Grauballe Man." Human Remains from the Dawn of History. The Nicholson Museum, 2016. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. http://humanremainsfromthhdawnofhistory.weebly.com/grauballe-man.html

Silkeborg Public Library. "Grauballe Man: A Face from Prehistoric Denmark." The Tollund Man. Silkeborg Public Library, 2004. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. http://www.tollundman.dk/grauballemanden.asp

Kerry Sullivan

Kerry Sullivan has a Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts and is currently a freelance writer, completing assignments on historical, religious, and political topics.


Do Gods Exist? ➤ 41 Jesus By Tacitus

Michael Nugent with the forty first in a series of pieces on whether gods exist.

Image: reconstruction of face of Jesus by
British medical artist Richard Neave

A second independent record of Jesus was written about 110 ad by Gaius Tacitus, a Roman Consul who turned his attention to writing in his forties.

His first major work, the Geskiedenisse, was written around 105 ad. It chronicled the Flavian dynasty that ruled the Roman Empire during the final third of the first century.

His second major work, the Annale, was published about five years later. It covered the quarter century leading up to the Flavian dynasty, from the death of Augustus Caesar to the suicide of Nero.

Here’s what Tacitus had to say about Jesus in the context of the spread of Christianity, and the burning of Rome, in 64 AD:

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 Judaea, 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.


The Ultimate Bad Rap: Emperor Nero, the Great Populist, Savior of the Ancient City of Rome

Professor Edward Champlin, writing in “Nero, Reconsidered,” deconstructs the bum rap about Nero being selfish and puts it to rest. Certainly Nero at this point was a megalomaniac and built a 30-meter-tall statue of himself, the Colossus of Nero. But architecture has always been used by effective leaders to project power. Champlain explains:

Nero’s Golden House and its park had always been essentially open to the public. I think that this is right, for all sorts of reasons. When the graffito said that one house was taking over Rome, it was merely distorting something Nero himself had proclaimed just before the Fire: he meant to treat the whole city as his house and the citizens as his closest friends – that is, the intention was to include, not exclude, everyone. To the annoyance of the aristocracy, Nero was in fact positioning himself as the great patron and friend of his people, offering them banquets all over the city and grand public spectacles in the theater, in the circus, in the forum, and now in his own home.

Ultimately, the elitists in the Roman Senate unified in a scheme to depose Nero in 0068 A.D., and he committed suicide. His downfall may have been signaled by too many gestures of mercy and lack of ruthlessness against his enemies. This is typified by what was thought to be a mad speech about Gaul to the Senate. Nero in his own wonderful theatrical way was suggesting friendship, collaboration and the tool of high culture might work better than bloodshed.

Contemporary Views About Nero

The smear version of history of Nero that we all grew up with is well known. But other than his enemies, who rewrote the history, what did his contemporaries say?

The “Annals” by Tacitus (c. 0056 – 0117) is the most detailed and comprehensive history on the rule of Nero. By Tacitus’ own admission, he owed much to Nero’s rivals. Realizing that this bias may be glaringly apparent to others of that age, Tacitus doth-protests-too-loudly that his writing is true.

Tacitus mentions that Nero’s death was welcomed by Senators, nobility and the upper class. He then grudgingly admits the lower-class, the slaves, the frequenters of the arena and the theater and “those who were supported by the famous excesses of Nero,” on the other hand, were very upset with the news.

Members of the military were said to have mixed feelings, as they had allegiance to Nero but had been bribed to overthrow him.

Lucanus (c. 0039 – 0065) has one of the kindest accounts of Nero’s rule. He writes of peace and prosperity under Nero in contrast to previous war and strife.

Philostratus II in the Athenian (c. 0172 – 0250) spoke of Nero in the “Life of Apollonius Tyana“(Books IV – V). Though he has a generally bad or dim view of Nero, he speaks of others’ positive reception of Nero, especially in the Hellenic East.

Josephus (c. 0037 – 0100), while calling Nero a tyrant, was also the first to mention bias against Nero. Of other historians, he addressed the concept of ignoring original research and just circle jerking the same historical script. Nero revisionism was suppressed.

But I omit any further discourse about these affairs for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favour, as having received benefits from him while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bore him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them.

The Nero Redivivus Legend

There is further evidence of his popularity among the Roman commoners, especially in the eastern provinces of the Empire, where a popular legend arose that Nero had not died and would return. At least three leaders of short-lived, failed rebellions presented themselves as “Nero reborn,” to enlist popular support.

This popular belief started during the last part of the first century. The legend of Nero was so strong that it persisted as a common belief as late as the fifth century.

Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) wrote that some believed “he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom.”

Dio Chrysostom, a Greek philosopher and historian, wrote, “Seeing that even now everybody wishes [Nero] were still alive. And the great majority do believe that he still is, although in a certain sense he has died not once but often along with those who had been firmly convinced that he was still alive.”

National Geographic Channel came up with a very good hidden-history version of Nero that I can recommend (first video below).

Soos hierdie:

Verwante artikels

William Langer’s ‘Newest History,’ the OSS and the Frankfurt School (aka New School)

The Hidden World of Benjamin Disraeli, a Made Man and Opportunist

Shocking New Sundance Documentary Makes the Staggering Claim That an Ex-Mercenary Group Secretly Spread HIV in South Africa to ‘Eradicate Black People’ and Was Once Backed by the CIA to Kill the UN Secretary General

19 Comments on The Ultimate Bad Rap: Emperor Nero, the Great Populist, Savior of the Ancient City of Rome

“The now inverted, warped history that portrays the Judeo proto-Christians as gentle, benign people couldn’t be further from the truth.”
Yep, and they got theirs in 70A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Early “Christians” believed the book of Revelations was the foretelling of this event, and therefore all things foretold there have ALREADY HAPPENED.
Joseph Atwill believes that the gospels(new testament) are simply the history of Titus Military campaign and the destruction of the second temple, and were not written by the early Christians but by the Romans themselves. After reading his book “Caesars Messiah” I must say I tend to agree.
And now we stand at the precipice of more death and destruction thanks to these same religious zealots as we watch events play out in Jerusalem and Palestine this very day. When will we learn?

Gerhard Baudy’s analysis is most likely the correct one – that Jews/Christians resident in Rome deliberately burned the city. Nero certainly took this view. He could not very well prosecute Jews for the crime, as his own wife, Poppaea, was Jewish, but the Christians definitely took the rap.

The only alleged ‘christians’ or ‘jews’ still living in or around Jerusalem at this time were “Edomites”. Converts to Israelite religion. Thus it would make sense that those pesky jews were simply the same pesky creatures we are still dealing with today — Edomites/Canaanites Khazars and Sephardi.

But we are talking about Rome, not Jerusalem , correct? Still, I think that true Christians were not involved in the political system or trying to overthrow it. It’s easy to blame anyone that is convenient.. As we see constantly today. It would have been easy for Romans to frame christians, or Jewish rebels , etc.
The book of Revelation is mostly symbolic, and contains no dates, AND the early Christians knew that God hated astrology so they would not have used to to make predictions.

In 64 AD the early proto-Christian religion was just one more in a series of Jewish Messanic movements the Romans has already dealt with and would continue to deal with. They would not have made any particular distinction.

Mention of Christ in contemporary Roman histories didn’t occur until Josephus mentioned it in a peculiar off handed way in 73 AD, “the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus” (James the Just) by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest.”

Rome — there would not have been very man self-identifying ‘christians’ in Rome. However, there would have been “Edomites” in Rome infiltrating and subverting as they always do. Not very many Israelites returned to Palestine during the time of Jesus. The majority of Israelites had already dispersed into Europe and Western Europe by this time.
‘Jew’ and ‘Israelite’ is not synonymous. Pretty much whenever the Scriptures speak of ‘jews’, it is referring to Edomite converts.
If you are interested theologically, check out — “Who is Esau-Edom” by the late Charles Weisman. A free pdf exists online.

A much needed article Russ, which deserves much more reception than it currently has. Nero certainly wasn’t a Donald Trump populist type, as he set himself against the Jewish “nation” by ordering it’s suppression.

A man who has been thoroughly trained in architecture cannot conceivably renege on his training, unless he turns insane, which is extremely unlikely (as he has cultivated an instinct for beauty) and which is an accusation often used as a convenient tool of slander by his enemies. There was no one better suited than Otto Wagner, in his book Modern Architecture, to describe the life and pursuit of the architect. He leaves no room for the destructive tendency. The Jew Lombroso was the one who introduced the ridiculous idea that a man can be both insane and a genius at the same time.

Also consider how Seneca was undoubtedly a good influence on Nero, as his letters sufficiently demonstrate. The myth that he had Seneca, his own mentor, put to death is almost maddening. If that were Dietrich Eckart and Hitler, no one in their right mind would believe it.

Mostly notably, all the Roman emperors before Nero had despised foreign cults, Nero was no exception to this. In putting down the Jewish rebellion, he demonstrates that he hadn’t deviated from the policies set by his predecessors (Tiberius, Claudius, Caligula), who tried to diminish Jewish influence by various means (expulsions, defiling the temple, physically weakening Jews by introducing them to mild climates), and later successors.

It should be obvious to most thinking people today that the Jew Chrestus (mentioned during the reign of Claudius by Suetonius) and the sect Chrestians are two peas in a pod, later modified by early Jewish-Christians to refer to Jesus and Christians and Porcius Festus was substituted by Pontius Pilate, all this in order to establish a Christian presence in the first three centuries (other interpolations are found in the writings of Pliny, Longinus, the Jew Josephus, Aurelius) and to scream persecution (they did, after all, the exaggerate the losses from Diocletian’s persecution).

Yes, was going to touch on Seneca’s being suicided being more problematic lying-history, but the post was getting a bit long as it was.

I see, yes that’s a good point. In any case, it prompted me to do more reading. I hadn’t at all been aware that Philostratus had mentioned Nero.

Some say the Book of Revelation was written in the 90s AD by John the Apostle, which is likely impossible since he would have been imprisoned on Patmos in his late 80s (he was born likely around between 10 and 20 AD since as an Apostle he began as a teenager and was the youngest of Christ’s Apostles). The Preterists (all things fulfilled folks) claim it was written around the time of John’s release from Patmos in 68 AD when Nero was dethroned. (Roman law was that when the Emperor who imprisoned someone died or was deposed, anyone imprisoned under that Emperor was released.) I’d agree with the Preterists on this one. the 70AD event did fulfill some of Christ’s prophesies, but not all of them. As for “Christians” burning Rome, it could be, since at John’s death and Paul’s and the others killings by the Romans (likely), it was then that Christianity started to “fall away” so to speak. Though I believe in Christ, I do not do religion…and I’m not the only one who thinks this way! All religion is, is man-made doctrines.

“Both Judaism and its offshoot, Christianity then and now, have history-influencing, crackpot, apocalyptic, end-of-world elements that historians ignore.”
Almost 2000 years later and these crackpots are still running the world, and would gladly do to the entire world today what they did to Rome in 64 AD. Unreal!!

(((ADL))) added “bowl cut” style haircuts to its “hate symbols” list. Nero has the Ultimate bowl cut. Fits in with the “hate” jews had for Rome and, IMO the same “hate” the jews have for the USA today, i.e. jew impeachment circus.

‘What an artist the world is losing.’

Speaking as a professional artist of much success until blindness did me in, if Rembrandt himself said that to me I’d hope to vomit in his face.

Does the conceit escape Winter Watch?

I hail from an Irish/Norweigian Freemason family who exalt themselves for their intelligence – mathematical brilliance in particular. Shattered math test scores – a people of record-setting genius, many triumphantly strode into the Ivy League embrace. Most were conceited pricks who behaved despicably towards their own kin. Their raw intelligence and subsequent conceit blinded them to triflings such as morality.

Conceit destroys family every time. Yet we are bidden here to genuflect before sheer intelligence as though it were a virtue?

What is our great international problem with the Screws (those embracing “Jewishness” with satanic intention): they are, in fact, far more intelligent than the public.

So WTF are we doing exalting the “great minds” who are our destroyers? US edumacation bids us to venerate our very destroyers. We thought we’d found respite on Winter Watch. Have we come so far up the Matterhorn of understanding world events only to be dashed against this fecal crag Nero?

An aspect of Nero’s imperial “populism” was his penchant for self-expression on the lute – probably much of the basis for “artistic” pride. He strode into the contests to show off as a bard. Although by most accounts he had talent in inverse ratio to ambition. No problem: he always won. To withhold applause might be fatal among the audience.

He would have been right at home with the self-adulating hijinx at deafening decibel levels known as rock and roll concerts (doesn’t the worshipful format of the inebriated masses facing a stage disturb anyone else?). Chopin trodden underfoot by Frankfurt School-drenched US academia, the entire Romantic movement banished from mention at university level. Much rock is all about idolatry, music be damned. Music you can play while drunk.

When – not if – Nero returns, expect him in such a setting.

“There shall certainly be a resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked.” Acts 24:15

Babylon too. En masse. One and the same horde who in their prior incarnation as Chaldea twice leveled the Temple in Jerusalem.

Older editions of the Encyclopedia outline ancient belief that Nero was previously Nebuchadnezzar.

A uniquely informative page online once described the heads on the beast as referring to prior and subsequent reincarnations of a same ruler.

For the scholarly, this discussion of past/future reincarnation has conflated (Vatican take a bow – dominionist Christendom here’s your laurel wreath) separate issues – the resurrection OF the dead freely confused with resurrection FROM the dead. Read New testament scripture in languages other than English – in which verbs denoting case have all but perished. Romance languages have a finely nuanced system of case in verb usage. A review of the two phrases reveals that ‘resurrection OF the dead’ is written in the imperative. ‘Resurrection FROM the dead’ is subjunctive. The first is mandated for every soul. The second is conditional, said of the post-mortem transformation of Christ as physically immortal.

Whole societies reincarnate en masse. Babylon serves as the chosen universal object lesson on karma. When the world realizes there is a rigorously reciprocal payday for what is done in life, people will be inclined to make more careful choices. A natural morality.

Imposters among the Jews have been ubiquitous. If those who burned Rome had any idea of the true law of God – karma – they would likely have made different choices than to harm the innocent.

Whether acknowledged or not, the pedophocracy is the ultimate edition of Babylon. Winter Watch has them in the crosshairs. They are now trenching in underground. They will fall by their own devices. In this age of high tech it is not difficult to imagine transhumanized bodies twitching forever in fiery trenches. A centerpiece will be the megalomaniac Nero, returned to demonstrate to the world what a star he is.


Bryn Mawr Classical Review

Recent political developments have generated renewed interest in the lessons that it may be possible to draw from ancient history and historians. 1 Given the fast-changing nature of current events, though, it is a relief that Victoria Emma Pagán eschews specifically contemporary points in this survey of Tacitus and his reception—especially as he 'can be pressed into the service of radically divergent ideologies' (31). Part of I.B. Tauris' Understanding Classics series, of which the aim is to 'introduce the outstanding authors and thinkers of antiquity to a wide audience of appreciative modern readers', this book combines close readings of selected passages, 2 discussion of the links between Tacitus' works and the time in which he wrote, and examinations of how he has subsequently been viewed. Pagán's approach, which swiftly moves between texts and their contexts and highlights the minor works and less well known examples of reception, contributes to an overall picture of Tacitus that goes beyond the familiar.

The first chapter, 'Prefacing a Life', uses the opposing opinions of two minor eighteenth-century readers to introduce what is known of Tacitus himself, before opening discussion of his works via their prefaces. A very clear concluding section previews the rest of the book, and indeed Pagán incorporates into each chapter a useful outline of its scope and structure. The second, 'Nobles and Nobodies', focuses on the cast of characters who feature in the Geskiedenisse en Annale. While a Julio-Claudian family tree is provided, there is a refreshing emphasis on individuals peripheral to the dynasty, including Tiberius' former wife Vipsania and her new husband Asinius Gallus (it is rarely acknowledged that the tradition's emphasis on the emperor's continuing love means that very personal animosity must surely be read into the scenes in the Annale where the two men clash politically). Pagán also draws on Ellen O'Gorman's intriguing hypothesis that a counterfactual 'virtual Pisonian dynasty' can be discerned in the Annale en die Geskiedenisse. 3 Like this theme, as Pagán shows, 'stock' Tacitean characters can also appear in more than one text or genre. A connection can be drawn from the anonymous Ligurian woman who does not reveal her son's hiding place to Otho's soldiers even under torture (Hist. 2.13.2), to the freedwoman Epicharis refusing to betray the Pisonian conspiracy (Ann. 15.57.2) and the mother of Agricola, who was murdered by, again, Othonians (Agr. 7.1).

In 'Words and Deeds', the third chapter, an explanation of the key differences between ancient and modern historiography precedes a discussion of how Tacitus engages in inventio, the 'imaginative reconstruction' (53) of events common in the former and generally anathema to the latter. The section on speeches includes persuasive and interesting vignettes on, for example, why and how the historian uses indirect speech (with the announcement to Galba of the Upper German legions' revolt in January at Hist. 1.12.1-3 a rich test case), the contrasting treatments of the Boudiccan revolt in the Agricola en die Annale, and the Lyons Tablet. The chapter's final pages look at the more colourful, earthy details in Tacitus' narratives that summary characterisations tend to overlook. Conversely, his famous sententiae privilege the general over the particular and necessarily 'have the potential to bury under self-evident and unquestionable truths any contest over the questionable distribution of power and unjust social practices that guaranteed inequality' (75).

The fourth chapter, 'Romans and Others', argues that the Germania's readers 'are bound to learn far more about the Romans and about Tacitus' philosophy of writing history than [they] will ever learn about the Germani' (83). Pagán sketches out the text's place in Roman ethnographical writing and shows how ideas within it reflect preoccupations in Tacitus' other works she also explores the thoughts expressed at Ger. 37.2-3 on Rome's history of German wars. She is right to assert that 'far from being an anomaly, the Germania contains themes and concerns that are central to Tacitus' way of thinking' (101) as manifest in his other works in, e.g., portrayals of non-Romans such as Calgacus, Caractacus, Arminius and the Batavian tribe. This conclusion reflects the increased scholarly interest during the last couple of decades in depictions of foreign individuals in the Germania en Agricola in particular, and what these may say about Rome. 4 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there is a further angle from which the Germania is representative, namely, the significant presence of non-Romans in the narrative of Roman history. This can be seen in the blurred boundaries between Romans and auxiliaries in what survives of the Geskiedenisse and in the frequent depictions of foreigners interacting with Romans in the Annale, among them freedom-fighters such as the North African Tacfarinas and the Gauls Florus and Sacrovir, as well as the Parthians and other Easterners. Even recent commentators have often treated these passages as res externae that merely break up the more serious res internae, but a case can be made for reading them as integral to the Roman historiographical narrative. 5

The fifth chapter, 'Then and Now', focuses on the Dialogus de Oratoribus. Pagán has a fine command of its complex structure and the individuals who speak or are mentioned in it. She also raises broader questions, juxtaposing Tacitus' ambivalent remarks elsewhere about the relationship between past and present with the way in which the Dialogus seems to pit 'a degenerate present against an honourable past' (108). She credibly proposes that Ann. 13.3, where Julio-Claudian eloquence reaches its nadir when Nero gives a eulogy (ghost)written by Seneca at Claudius' funeral, can be read as a parody of the Dialogus, a work that already claims to reimagine a real-life conversation (in which the historian himself is fleetingly present). It might be added that this intertext is further complicated by historiographical chronology: the Dialogus, written before the Annale, covers events that happened after the death of Nero, from the perspective of a contemporary era that is not the subject of direct coverage in Tacitus' extant writings.

The focus of the book's final chapter, 'Yesterday and Today', is Tacitus' reception. 6 Having considered the impact of his representations of Jews and Christians, Pagán moves on to the rediscovery of his manuscripts and the strong interest shown by Germans in particular (there are 82 German plays on the battle of the Teutoburg Forest, and 75 operas about Arminius were performed between 1676 and 1910). On the subject of Tacitus in the twentieth century—and beyond—it is good to see the pervasive influence of Syme acknowledged. Outside academia, in recent years novelists and dramatists, painters, and poets have been inspired by Tacitus to produce work in which ethical and environmental issues loom just as large as politics and history.

Overall, this book offers much to ponder for specialists and general readers and is impressively full of detail about Tacitus' works and the characters who feature in them, in addition to providing many interesting nuggets about his reception. Indeed, details are a key strength: the overall structure of the Geskiedenisse en Annale and the historiographical tradition in which they can be seen feature less heavily than the minor works and individual points about content and style. However, it is no bad thing to be reminded that Tacitus is not, or not only, the austere political historian he is often taken to be.


Kyk die video: Xen for Beginners - Bryan Smith, Tacit Labs, Inc. (Januarie 2022).