# fuere qui adnotarent xiiii Kal. Sextilis principium incendii huius ortum, et quo Senones captam urbem inflammaverint



## PowerOfChoice

In Tacitus' Annales XV:41 (cf. footnote 1) the last two sentences reads as follows:
"fuere qui adnotarent xiiii Kal. Sextilis principium incendii huius ortum, et quo Senones captam urbem inflammaverint. alii eo usque cura progressi sunt ut totidem annos mensisque et dies inter utraque incendia numerent."​In these sentences it is obvious that an event in the remote past, i.e. relative to the reign of Nero, namely "the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome," is being referenced as having begun on "xiiii Kal. Sextilis" [July 19,] [in about 390 BCE (cf. footnote 2 below,)] is it not?


*Question:*
Is the language of the text in said sentences unequivocally stating that the burning of Rome at the time of Nero... *“*33. In the year of the consulship of Caius Lacanius and Marcus Licinius… ” (Tacitus, _The Annals_, 15:33; cf. footnote 3) began on July 19 also, albeit in a different year than about 390 BCE?

Or, alternatively, is Tacitus' text merely giving the July 19 date in reference to something that he is labeling more or less as hearsay relative to the burning of Rome under Nero, e.g. by his words translated below by the words "Some persons observed..." and "Others have pushed a curious inquiry..."


Said sentences have been translated as follows:
41... Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 19 th of July, the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days. (Tacitus, The Annales, XV:41; cf. footnote 3.)​Another translation reads as follows:
41... It did not escape observation, that the fire broke out on the fourteenth of the calends of July [cf. footnote 4,] a day remarkable for the conflagration kindled by the Senones, when those Barbarians took the city of Rome by storm, and burnt it to the ground. Men of reflection, who refined on every thing with minute curiosity, calculated the number of years, months, and days from the foundation of Rome to the firing of it by the Gauls; and from that calamity to the present they found the interval of time precisely the same.​*Same question rephrased:* 
Is Tacitus' original Latin text above unequivocally making it clear that the fire in Rome at the time of Nero began on "xiiii Kal. Sextilis," or is it not making that clear?




-------

Footnote 1: Please find the full context at: ww.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0077:book=15:chapter=41

Footnote 2: July 18, 390 B.C. - _The Battle of Allia_ began on this date. It was a battle fought during the first invasion of Italy by the _Gauls_ (who occupied modern-day northern Italy, France Belgium, western Switzerland, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany). The Allia River is a stream that flows into the Tiber River of Rome, and Rome's defeat here led to the Gallic sack of Rome in 387 B.C. (Cf. Suite 101: ancienthistory.suite101.com/blog.cfm/this_week_rome_burns_to_the_ground_but_did_nero_really_fiddle)

Footnote 3: Please find the full context at: ww.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/annals/chap15.htm

Footnote 4: "The fourteenth of the calends of July, or the eighteenth of June. This is confirmed by Livy, who says, lib. vi. s. 1, that the battle of Allia was faught on the fifteenth of the calends; and book v. s. 41, he says the victorious Gauls entered Rome the following day." (Tacitus, The Annals of Tacitus XV:41/footnote #4; cf.: here.)


----------



## RADIRO

In my opinion, Tacitus is saying that the interval of time between the foundation of Rome and the burning of her by the Celts of Brenus in 390 B.C. (revised date 384 B.C.) is exactly the same that the one bet ween that event and the burning of the Urbs by Nero (64 A.C.).

En mi opinión Tácito dice que el intervalo de tiempo entre la fundación de Roma y el incendio de Roma por los Celtas de Breno en 390 a.C (fecha revisada 384 a.C.) es de igual extensión que el intervalo entre la conquista de Breno y el incendio de la Urbe por Nerón en el 64 d.C.


----------



## Anne345

July 18 
(...) 
Events
390 BC - Roman-Gaulish Wars: Battle of the Allia - A Roman army is defeated by raiding Gauls, leading to the subsequent sacking of Rome. 
64 - Great fire of Rome: A fire begins to burn in the merchant area of Rome and soon burns completely out of control while Emperor Nero reportedly plays his lyre and sings while watching the blaze from a safe distance. 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_18)


----------



## PowerOfChoice

*Dear Anne345,*

I hope you won’t mind me asking you, but why are you referring to Wikipedia in a way that to me sounds as if you are referring to some kind of historical authority? Isn't the above quoted words of Tacitus the only reference given re the July 18 or 19 date for Nero's fire in Rome, not only by Wikipedia but by anyone at all? 

I’m interested in learning what the Latin language of Tacitus is actually saying or not saying exactly because, as far as I am aware, the above quote of Tacitus is being used as the one and only contemporary record claiming that the fire of Rome may have begun on “xiiii Kal. Sextilis.”

*My question remains:*
Can it be unequivocally claimed, based upon Tacitus’ original text alone, as written in Latin, that Tacitus is tying the date “xiiii Kal. Sextilis” (cf. footnote 1) to Nero’s fire, and not exclusively to “the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome (cf. footnote 2?)

- - -

*Foot note 1: *July 19 (after the 46 BCE Julian calendar reformation Sextilis had 31 days.) Cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar.

*Foot note 2: *July 17 (Between about 713 BCE and 46 BCE Sextilis had 29 days.) Cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

It is frequently stated (e.g. in Wikipedia under "Great fire of Rome") that Nero's fire in Rome began on the night or evening of July 18 and that the reference for this is Tacitus, Annals XV:38 or 40. However, upon reviewing two English translations (cf. footnote 1) of Tacitus, Annals XV:38-41, I find no support whatsoever for anything touching upon either "the evening," “night,” or indeed any hint of what time of day the fire began. Nor do I find any support for the fire beginning prior to "xiiii Kal. Sextilis" (July 19.)


*Question 1:*
I would very much appreciate any help in finding whatever specific language in the Latin text of Tacitus, Annals XV:38-41 that somehow gives reference either to "evening," “night,” or any specific time of day being associated with the beginning of the burning of Rome. Likewise for the fire beginning any time prior to "xiiii Kal. Sextilis." Naturally if no such language exists in Tacitus' Latin works, I’ll be most happy to have that fact confirmed as well. 


- - - 

Footnote 1: *References to two English translations of Tacitus, Annales, XV:38-41:*
1) ww.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/annals/chap15.htm ; and 
2) The Works of Cornelius Tacitus


----------



## Anne345

Not in Tacitus, but in C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum  [6,38]
_Per sex dies septemque noctes ea clade saeuitum est_ 

si fire began during night.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thanks Anne345 for alerting me to that fine reference!

Using ww.perseus.tufts.edu I find your quoted words in paragraph 38, but I do not understand the "6" in your above reference "[6,38.]" Perhaps you will enlighten me on that little detail as well?


Thanks also for verifying the absence of any reference to night or evening in the Latin version of Tacitus!

Most valuable to me, indeed!


----------



## Anne345

Nero is 6th book
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0061&query=section%3D%23929 
translation 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bi...2.0132;query=chapter=#414;layout=;loc=nero 39


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Anne345 said:


> Nero is 6th book


 



Thanks Anne345!

I'm a bit slow sometimes. Yes, 6th book or 6th chapter, which is about the 6th Caesar dealt with, in Suetonius' work De Vita Caesarum.






Thanks RADIRO for sharing your understanding of this passage in a way that makes a lot of sense to me! 

BTW, I find it quite interesting to note that the above quoted statement of Tacitus quite possibly may be exactly consistent with the facts as they really happened - in spite of the fact that from our late vantage point there are only all too many unknown details re the chronology of that time to fully understand all the details as yet.


----------

