Talk:AD 62 Pompeii earthquake

Article name
The name of this article is now back where it started, having had a brief history as the AD 62 Pompeii earthquake. I have a slight preference for the current name, it's how I started it after all, but I have a strong preference for editors who move articles for giving other editors the courtesy of an explanation on the talk page, even better if the move is delayed until after discussion. My other gripe is that in both cases the moving editors have left the name in the article unchanged and done nothing about the incoming links. If this article is moved again without discussion I will revert it back (end of rant). Mikenorton (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for citation
Does anyone have a citation for this earthquake's having been in 62 AD? The primary source (Seneca's Naturales quaestiones, chapter 6) says it was in the consulship of G. Memmius Regulus and L. Verginius Rufus ("Nonis Februariis hic fuit motus Regulo et Uerginio consulibus,"), which was in 63 AD (see the linked articles for these consuls). Is this just a typo that has persisted over the years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquegeek (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The disagreement over the date seems to be because Tacitus includes the event in his annals for AD62, so some seismologists, archaeologists and historians use one date and some the other, although 62 seems to be the most commonly used see page 228. When I created this article, all the sources that I found, including the main catalogues, used the 62 date and I remained unaware of the possible alternative. It would probably be best to include a short section on the uncertainty, which I will try to do next weekend. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. It should be noted when relating the disagreement between sources that Seneca was writing his description later the same year (assuming he was correct about its being in AD 63), while Tacitus was writing about it over 40 years later, based on sources of uneven quality, as the last paragraph in the Wikipedia article about him points out (using other known errors as examples).--Antiquegeek (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit late to the party, but I think a precis of this discussion and the uncertainty of the date should go in the article, where it is misleadingly presented very firmly as being dated to a particular day. I've been reading Pompeii archaeology articles that put it at 62/63 AD. 81.147.167.25 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Never too late. The Catalogue of Strong Earthquakes in Italy (467 BC - 1997) (Guidoboni et al. 2018) uses 62 with the following discussion - "The problem of the dating of this earthquake has been discussed at length due to a discrepancy between the two literary sources that mention it: Tacitus dates it to the year 62, in fact the expression "isdem consulibus" of "Annales" 15.22 refers to the previous mention of the consuls P. Marius Celsus and L.Asinius Gallus, in office precisely in the year 62. Seneca, with the expression "Nonis Februariis [...] Regulo et Virginio consulibus" apparently seems to date the shock to February 5 63: C .Memmius Regulus and L. Virginius Rufus were in fact the consuls of that year. Philologists have long been divided on this contrast of dates; however, starting from the dissertation of Jonas (1870) (7) and following the studies of Chabert (1903) (8), Lecocq (1949) (9) and, above all, of Onorato (1949) (10), spreading the belief that the expression "Regulo et Virginio consulibus" is an interpolation subsequent to the time of Tacitus, who perhaps had kept in mind the passage by Seneca. Henry (1982) (11) tried to reconcile the contrasting dates of Tacitus and Seneca by hypothesizing the existence of two distinct earthquakes: one occurred towards the end of 62 AD, mentioned by Tacitus, and another which occurred on 5 February 63 AD., the one mentioned by Seneca. Hine (1984) (12), while recognizing a certain plausibility to the arguments advanced by Henry, however, rejected the conclusions, reaffirming the validity of the theory of interpolation and therefore of the dating of the earthquake to 5 February 62 AD.
 * Dating the Pompeii earthquake to the year 62 also resolves some apparent inconsistencies within the text of the "Naturales Quaestiones", which arise if the date of 63 is taken instead. In the same work (7.28.3) Seneca describes the appearance of a comet visible for six months in the second half of the year 60. Tacitus also remembers this astronomical phenomenon, also observed by Chinese astronomers (Ho Peng Yoke 1962) (13). In the same passage, Seneca mentions the effects that he believes were caused by the passage of the comet: widespread atmospheric disturbances and earthquakes that hit Achaia and Macedonia. Seneca argued, in controversy with Aristotle, that these phenomena had lasted for a whole year and would therefore be datable to 60-61 AD. In another passage (6.1.13) the author recalled that the earthquake in Achaia and Macedonia (61 AD) occurred "last year" ("prior year") compared to that of Pompeii. Only if the date of 62 A.D. is adopted. for the Campania earthquake we avoid making the text of the "Naturales Quaestiones" inconsistent."
 * I failed to add a section on the date uncertainty back in 2013, but I will try to do that now. Mikenorton (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Section now added, cited to the CFTI5MED online catalogue. Mikenorton (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 62 Pompeii earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106113332/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2009/us2009fcaf/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2009/us2009fcaf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)