Chapter XVIII: The Revolt of 68 C.e

Footnote 318:

Cf. Livy, Books XXXIX and XL.

Footnote 319:

Tac. Ann. iii. 40 seq.; _ibid._ ii. 52; iv. 23. In 52 C.E., Cilicia
rose in revolt; _ibid._ xii. 55. The Jewish disturbances of the same
year are alluded to in Tac. Ann. xii. 54—a passage omitted in Reinach.

Footnote 320:

Josephus, Wars, II. xvi.

Footnote 321:

The entire life of this curious impostor, as portrayed by Lucian, is
of the highest interest. The maddest and most insolent pranks received
no severer punishment than exclusion from Rome.

Footnote 322:

C. I. L. vii. 5471.

Footnote 323:

For the Armenian, British, etc., rebellions, see Suet. Nero, 39, 40.
In at least one other part of the empire, prophecy and poetry
maintained the hope of an ultimate supremacy, something like the
Messianic hope of the Jews. This was in Spain, and upon this fact
Galba laid great stress. Suet. Galba, 9: _Quorum carminum sententia
erat, oriturum quandoque ex Hispania principem dominumque rerum_.

Footnote 324:

Suetonius speaks first of the joy shown at his death, then of the
grief. It is, however, easy to see that the latter manifestation was
probably the more genuine and lasting.

Footnote 325:

Josephus, Ant. XX. viii. 11; Vita, 3.

Footnote 326:

We learn from the same passage that a great many accounts of Nero
existed, and many of them were favorable. The implication further is
that these accounts were written after his death. We have only the
picture drawn by Tacitus and Suetonius. If we had one written from the
other side, like Velleius Paterculus’ panegyric of Tiberius (Vell.
Pat. ii. 129 seq.), we should be better able to judge him.

Footnote 327:

Gittin 56a.

Footnote 328:

Reinach, Textes, pp. 176-178.

Footnote 329:

Neither the arch nor the inscription exists any longer. A copy of the
inscription was made, before the ninth century, by a monk of the
monastery of Einsiedeln, to whose observation and antiquarian interest
we owe more than one valuable record.

Footnote 330:

The phrase _Iudaica superstitione imbuti_, already quoted, shows what
the term would be likely to suggest to Roman minds. In Diocletian’s
time, when the Persians were the arch-enemies of Rome, and Persian
doctrine in the form of Manicheism was widely spread over the empire,
the emperors did not hesitate to call themselves _Persicus_. But
_Persicus_ never meant an adherent of a religious sect.

Footnote 331:

_Idumaea_ is used for _Iudaea_ in Statius Silvae, iii. 138; v. 2, 138;
Valerius Flaccus, Argon. 12.