- This topic has 5 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
A historian questions whether the Roman emperor's reputation was deserved, of if it was the product of ancient (and modern) exaggeration or fiction. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23455774I now throw this out there - in your study of Greek and Roman history, do you find a case could be made that ancient historians sometimes manufacture reputations of their rulers?
Yeah, pretty much all of them do. If I remember correctly, each emperor had an imperial biographer so of course they would make whomever they were writing about bigger than life. Then you have the other side of those who were critics or opponents, some were kind of nasty.
Really? To me, sounds too much like “Calgon” and I imagine a soapy bath."Nero", however, sounds nefarious.
I don't believe that any ancient author ever gave any thought to the idea that they should be impartial or attempt objectivity when they wrote.
What about writings such as (Gospel of John):
33But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34* s but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. 35An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows* that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may [come to] believe.t
And after the Resurrection:
24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,* and we know that his testimony is true.n
There may be other similar references similar to this in the New Testament. It seems that these statements - which may seem a bit out of place to the ordinary reader - are meant to give the sense that the account was objective. However, I do agree that many ancient texts (e.g. biographies of political figures) were not impartial descriptions.
Think about Thomas More and Shakespeare sucking up to the Tudors regarding Richard III and two runty princes when Henry VII and VIII slaughtered dozens more who had greater legitimate claims to the throne.
I split the thread, the Pope's remark discussion is now here.
