Tacitus and the Jews (Part I)

Publius Cornelius Tacitus is one of the most famous of all Roman historians (and certainly one of the most read) and indeed possibly one of the greatest historians in the classical world. Tacitus however in addition to his work on the history of Imperial Rome; which forms the basis for his ‘Histories’ and ‘Annals’, gives us an interesting and indeed brutally honest portrait of the jews as a people.

Tacitus’ remarks on this score have long been cited by educated anti-Semites (1) as they make for excellent confirmation that the charges of anti-Semitism; often supposed to be lacking a factual basis, have largely stayed constant throughout the ages and that jewish behaviour has consequently stayed the same throughout this time period. (2) Thus directly suggesting a link between jewish behaviour and outbreaks of anti-Semitic feeling/violence that cannot be reasonably dismissed out-of-hand by even the most dedicated philo-Semite.

Tacitus’ comments on the jews have come in for considerable academic discussion and are usually dismissed as being repetition of unfounded anti-jewish myths; of generally Greek origin, that one can also see repeated in Josephus’ ‘Against Apion’. What has not been pointed out in modern literature is that Tacitus’ description and analysis of the jews is actually; like most of his work, rather more correct than it has been conceded by the generally philo-Semitic academic establishment.

What we shall do in this essay is to bring to the fore Tacitus’ comments on the jews (regardless of their origin in either experience or the literature of the time); which form a short segment of fifth book of his ‘Histories’, and examine them to see how reasonable they are and whether they can dismissed as easily as various philo-Semitic and jewish scholars have claimed. We shall also; where appropriate, comment on how Tacitus’ description of the jews should be understood in the light of modern anti-Semitic research.

Tacitus begins his account of the jews by informing us of the arguments; without explicitly endorsing any one theory in particular, surrounding the origin of the jews at the time that he wrote. (3) He tells us that one theory is based on the notion that the jews come from Crete which is adduced from the similarity of the names: ‘Idaei’ (the inhabitants of Mount Ida in Crete) and ‘Judaei’ (the inhabitants of Judea or the jews). He then proceeds to inform us that the jews were said to have emigrated to Libya and that an; implied, rival tradition disputes this and claims that the jews are in fact superfluous population from Egypt who were lead out of Egypt by two men called ‘Hierosolymus’ and ‘Juda’. Tacitus also informs us that another tradition has the jews originating from Ethiopia to the south of Egypt. Another theory has it that the jews are Assyrian refugees and occupied a piece of Egyptian territory turning it into their own state. While another; more fanciful, theory claims that the jews were the descendents of the Solymi; from south-west Turkey, who were then famous due to Homer’s positive mention of them in the Iliad. (4)

These theories; in spite of claims that Tacitus and/or the Greek accounts of the jews are almost wholly inaccurate, are actually; in all but two instances (those of the Cretan and Solymian origin of the jews), reconcilable with the account of the jewish origins given in the Torah/Pentateuch. We can note that the references to Libya and Egypt closely follow the Biblical narrative with the jews having come from the Egyptian empire (5) and the reference to Ethiopia can also be argued to simply based on the assumption that the jews originate from Egypt and therefore that the jews originate from Punt (Ethiopia) as the Egyptian mythology claimed they; the Egyptians, did. The reference to Assyria is also; we may reasonably suggest, a direct result of the assertion by B'reshiyth/Genesis that Abraham was held captive in Syria only to return to Canaan later, which Tacitus would have reasonably

regarded as Assyrian and Egyptian territory at that point in time. (6)

The reference to ‘Hierosolymus’ probably refers to Moses/Moshe as ‘Juda’ seems to me to probably be either a corruption of‘Juba’ (7) or ‘Judea’. (8) Where-as with ‘Hierosolymus’ it would be normal for Greek sources; especially if they believed the Hellenizing jews who tried to make jewish tradition fit Greek mythology and legend, to assign Moses/Moshe a Greek name (as opposed to the barbarian original): much as they assigned the Greek gods to other pagan peoples; emphasizing a particular god or goddess depending on their knowledge of the religious customs or general culture of the people in question. Tacitus himself implicitly endorses this interpretation when he asserts that ‘most authorities agree’ that the jews were lead out of Egypt by a man named Moses/Moshe, which indirectly implies that Tacitus believed one (or both) of the identifications of ‘Hierosolymus’ or ‘Juda’as the man who led the jews out Egypt to be Moses/Moshe and that he had correctly identified possibly the most important figure in jewish history. (9)

We could also potentially argue that the claim that the jews were the descendents of the Solymi possibly derives from the assertion that ‘Hierosolymus’ lead them out of Egypt in the Exodus and that a Greek or Roman author (or perhaps more maliciously a Hellenizing jew in the vein of Philo Judaeus); who would almost certainly been familiar with Homer, had taken it upon themselves to rationalise the existence of the jews within Homeric epic by associating them with a people described by Homer (i.e. to link them to the Greeks if one were to look at this as a malicious act on the part of a Hellenizing jew). We can see this association in Tacitus’ recounting of the theory that the jews originate from Crete based on the like sounds of the given names of the two peoples.

We should however note that this is only intellectual speculation on my part in that I am not a classical philologist and nor do I make any claim to be one. That said I felt it necessary to call to my reader’s attention that potentiality it seems possible; even probable, that the origins of the jews that Tacitus relates are in fact not only reconcilable but fairly reasonable for the time period as they; as we have seen, do actually derive from the jewish tradition and unless one regards jewish claims as to their origin in the Torah/Pentateuch uncritically then one has to pay attention to the theories propounded by the unknown authors who Tacitus is citing.

References

(1) For example see Theodor Fritsch, 1933, ‘Handbuch der Judenfrage’, 35th Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig, pp. 418-419(2) This thesis; as applied to the Roman Empire, is best exemplified by Franz Altheim’s, 1939, ‘Die Soldatenkaiser’, 1st Edition, Das Ahnenerbe: Berlin, which uses Tacitus; although not directly, as one of the key evidential bases to argue that there was an internal power struggle between the Aryan and Semitic races within the Roman Empire. Altheim's thesis is controversial; especially in the present age, but it still represents one of the more complete theories regarding the Roman Empire, which takes into account biology as opposed to the presumption that social, economic and religious differences lie at the heart of the understanding of history (which is in effect a denial of the application and the value of biological science).(3) Tac. Hist. 5. 2(4) Hom. Il. 6. 184(5) On this point see the book of Sh’moth/Exodus in particular.(6) Gen. 12(7) The name of a number of rulers of nearby Numidia. It is notable that Juba II was associated; via his second marriage to Glaphyra, to the Kings of Judea as her first husband was Prince Alexander of

Judea (a son of the infamous King Herod of Judea) and her lover and third husband was another son of King Herod of Judea: King Herod Archelaus. This further suggests that ‘Juda’may well be a corruption of ‘Juba’ given this close historical association, which would probably have been known to Tacitus in some form as Juba II had been an advisor to Gaius Caesar during his tour of the Eastern Provinces between 2 BC and 2 AD given his description of Gaius Caeser in the 'Annals'.(8) The southern jewish kingdom which has historically been more closely associated with the jews of today than the northern jewish kingdom of Samaria.(9) Tac. Hist. 5. 3. One could also combine the names ‘Hierosolymus’ and ‘Juda’ to form one individual, which if the reference was to one individual might suggest that Moses/Moshe was indeed the individual referred to by Tacitus and the authors whose opinions/theories he cites.

Posted 14th September 2010 by Karl Radl

Labels: Roman Empire Ancient Rome Judea Ancient Greece anti-Semitism Tacitus anti-Judaism jews Publius Cornelius Tacitus anti-Semitism 2.0

……….

Apion of Alexandria on the Jews (Part III)

Josephus continues his abuse of Apion thus:

'As for Ptolemy Philometer and his wife Cleopatra, they committed their whole kingdom to the Jews, when Onias and Dositheus, both Jews, whose names are laughed at by Apion, were the generals of their whole army. But certainly, instead of reproaching them, he ought to admire their actions, and return them thanks for saving Alexandria, whose citizen he pretends to be; for when these Alexandrians were making war with Cleopatra the queen, and were in danger of being utterly ruined, these Jews brought them to terms of agreement, and freed them from the miseries of a civil war. "But then (says Apion) Onias brought a small army afterwards upon the city at the time when Thorruns the Roman ambassador was there present." Yes, do I venture to say, and that he did rightly and very justly in so doing; for that Ptolemy who was called Physco, upon the death of his brother Philometer, came from Cyrene, and would have ejected Cleopatra as well as her sons out of their kingdom, that he might obtain it for himself unjustly. For this cause then it was that Onias undertook a war against him on Cleopatra's account; nor would he desert that trust the royal family had reposed in him in their distress. Accordingly, God gave a remarkable attestation to his righteous procedure; for when Ptolemy Physco had the presumption to fight against Onias' army, and had caught all the Jews that were in the city of Alexandria, with their children and wives, and exposed them naked and in bonds to his elephants, that they might be trodden upon and destroyed, and when he had made those elephants drunk for that purpose, the event proved contrary to his preparations; for these elephants left the Jews who were exposed to them, and fell violently upon Physco's friends, and slew a great number of them; nay, after this Ptolemy saw a terrible ghost, which prohibited his hurting those men; his very concubine, whom he loved so well, (some call her Ithaca, and others Irene,) making supplication to him, that he would not perpetrate so great a wickedness. So he complied with her request, and repented of what he either had already done, or was about to do; whence it is well known that the Alexandrian Jews do with good reason celebrate this day, on the account that they had thereon been vouchsafed such an evident deliverance from God. However, Apion, the common

calumniator of men, has the presumption to accuse the Jews for making this war against Physco, when he ought to have commended them for the same. This man also makes mention of Cleopatra, the last queen of Alexandria, and abuses us, because she was ungrateful to us; whereas he ought to have reproved her, who indulged herself in all kinds of injustice and wicked practices, both with regard to her nearest relations and husbands who had loved her, and, indeed, in general with regard to all the Romans, and those emperors that were her benefactors; who also had her sister Arsinoe slain in a temple, when she had done her no harm: moreover, she had her brother slain by private treachery, and she destroyed the gods of her country and the sepulchres of her progenitors; and while she had received her kingdom from the first Caesar, she had the impudence to rebel against his son and successor and she corrupted Antony with her love-tricks as well as rendered him an enemy to his country, and made him treacherous to his friends, and by these means despoiled some of their royal authority, and forced others in her madness to act wickedly.' (25)

Once again this passage from Josephus at first glance is difficult to extract meaningful information from, but if we but review what it is actually telling us then we can learn something of both Apion's argument and Josephus' attempts to combat it.

Now the ostensible narrative of this passage is to chart the infighting of the Egyptian royal family between the famous Cleopatra, her sister Arsinoe and her brother Ptolemy Physco. In it we learn that the Alexandrians had sided with Physco in that struggle and that two of Cleopatra's principle commanders; Onias and Dositheus, were; according to Josephus, jewish. Further part of Cleopatra's army had been lead north by the jew Onias (after having deserted Ptolemy Physco's service for Cleopatra's) to besiege that city and that Ptolemy Physco having lead his army from Cyrene had defeated Onias and saved the city.

Further we are told that Ptolemy Physco targeted the jews as his enemies; as supporters of Cleopatra (remember Josephus tells us that the jews of Alexandria made a compact with Cleopatra while the rest of the population supported Ptolemy Physco), and lead them from Alexandria to a place to execution where they were stripped naked and were to have their heads crushed by drunken elephants (per the famous Indian method of execution). Now something obviously panicked or enraged the elephants at this point and elephants; as they were notorious for doing when they deployed by the armies of Carthage against Rome, and they rampaged through Ptolemy Physco's army rather than performing the executions as planned.

Josephus naturally interprets this as a miracle wrought by Yahweh to save the jews and further Ptolemy Physco's mistress; Irene, was allegedly much disturbed by a dream she had had; dreams at this time were believed to be one of the principle mediums through which the gods communicated their intentions and wishes to their worshippers and further a nightmare could forewarn a person of disaster on horizon, and she; by her relation to Ptolemy Physco, managed to persuade him to commute the death sentence of the jews. Josephus does not say precisely what Ptolemy Physco did with the jews afterwards, but it may reasonably suggested that he probably heavily fined them or confined himself to just executing the open partisans of Cleopatra rather than the whole jewish community as originally intended.

Now the reader may notice a similarity between this tale that Josephus tells and the Book of Esther as in it a gallows is erected by non-jewish minister Haman to kill the jews of Persia; lead by Mordechai, and the Persian king; at the insistence of his jewish mistress Esther, hangs Haman on those gallows and the jews massacre thousands of anti-jewish Persians in open reprisal.

If we compare this biblical archetype to the story that Josephus is peddling we can see that it fits it quite closely with Ptolemy Physco's (Haman's) plan to execute Onias (Mordechai) and the jews of Alexandria (Persia) is stayed at the point of execution and the intervention of Ptolemy Physco's mistress Irene (Esther), which then saves the jews from execution and kills many of the prosecutors of the jews by the means of execution they had set up for the jews in the form of the elephants (Haman's gallows). The execution of Ptolemy Physco is then performed by the ruler of Egypt (the Persian king) Cleopatra some years later.

As we can see while the story line is not exactly the same it does closely mirror the archetype laid out by the book of Esther. The parallel is made even more obvious when Josephus tells us that down to the day he wrote the jews of Alexandria celebrate a religious festival to honour this deliverance and the execution of their enemies, which of course can be taken as allusion to a form of the Purim festival that is celebrated to mark the jewish victory of Haman in Persia.

This intellectual convergence tells us two things.

Firstly that the story which Josephus is spinning about the episode with the jews of Alexandria is very likely contrived out of thin air by him; as he cites no actual sources for it, in order to give him an avenue to attack Apion's comment about the jews of Alexandria betraying the city to its enemies in this conflict.

Secondly that Josephus was a pious fraudster as he is using jewish religious stories from a completely different era and transliterating them into a time closer to his own as 'historical fact' in order to cover up and defend the behaviour of the jews of Alexandria.

We can see what Josephus is up to when we note that he doesn't deny the power of the jews in Egypt and in fact goes as far as to openly state the jews were integral to Cleopatra's campaign of succession as well as later noting that they were key supporters of the tyranny of Julius Caesar, (26) which is also confirmed by Suetonius (27) and suggested by the conduct of his nephew Augustus (or Octavian). (28)

This tells us that what I have termed the 'Ancient Israel Lobby' may have been in significant operation as early as the later years of the Roman Republic and that it may have learned its craft in Egyptian

power politics and migrated; with the gradual shift in the balance of power in the Mediterranean, to Rome.

Apion seems to have argued something like this as Josephus clearly tells us that Apion charged that the jews worked in the interests of pointless factionalism at the Egyptian royal court and that as such they supported the weakest claim; that of Cleopatra, in the hope of causing the maximum amount of chaos and dissension in Egypt forcing both factions to increasingly rely upon them as mediators and leaders; which Josephus also explicitly states, and thus place them in a powerful position to exert influence upon Egyptian policy-making for their own benefit.

This is further illustrated by Josephus' assertion that Apion; correctly in his view, argued that the jews then betrayed Cleopatra when it suited them causing her ire to fall upon them as well. This nicely demonstrates that the jews did not 'believe' per se in any particular faction and were not engaging in the normal run-of-the-mill political factionalism; which dominates most societies and governmental systems, but rather were deliberately manipulating the political situation to their perceived benefit and trying; by supporting the weaker faction at any given time, to prolong the civil war and maximize their political and economic gain from it.

That Apion argued this seems all the more likely once we recall that Josephus tells us that Apion argued that the jews were a fifth column inside Alexandria and Egypt and worked not its interests, but rather their own and followed the commands and dictates of their religious leaders who were still; at this time, based in Jerusalem, but who had local representatives in Alexandria.

So thus we can see that Apion was arguing that the jews were exerting a disproportionate amount of political and social influence in relation to their numbers in the Egyptian kingdom and that further they were not interested in the welfare of the Egyptians or Greeks who lived there, but only in the welfare and furtherance of jews and international jewish interests.

Now before we leave this section of Josephus' text we have one more point that needs to be brought in Josephus' contradictory argument against Apion, which helps indicate the desperation of this jewish religious fanatic in his attacks on the anti-jewish intellectual school of thought emanating from Alexandria. This is to be found in what precisely Josephus says about Apion's argument that the jews worked against Ptolemy Physco and supported Cleopatra and then what he says about the jewish involvement with Cleopatra.

Now Josephus snorts in reply to Apion that the Greeks of Alexandria should be commending the jews for supporting Cleopatra as Ptolemy Physco was; due to the story of the miraculous escape of the jews from execution at his hands, the worst kind of tyrant (suggesting that the Greeks of Alexandria supported tyranny rather democracy, which is a snide and fairly vicious political dig at them).

Josephus then moves on to Cleopatra and again snorts derisively at Apion's contention about how the jews then proceeded to work against Cleopatra and she; understandably, became irate in regards to their activities and took unspecified actions against them in her kingdom. Josephus proceeds to claim that once again Apion should commend the jews as Cleopatra; per the Roman political propaganda about her put out later by Augustus, had deceived Anthony by her love-tricks (much like the goddess Circe tried to do with Homer's Machiavellian hero Odysseus in 'The Odyssey') and was an example of the listless and unmanly decadence of the East.

Now the reader will quickly notice that Josephus is trying to have his cake and eat it here as he suggests that the jews supported the tyrannical 'temptress of the East' Cleopatra against another Egyptian tyrant Ptolemy Physco and this should be to their credit, but then as soon as Ptolemy Physco had been defeated the jews turned on Cleopatra as well.

Now this clearly means that the jews supported tyranny as long as they felt it was in their interest to do so and not; as Josephus would have it, that the jews were supporters of democratic ideas (which Josephus; we should remember, falsely believed Aristotle had gleaned from a study of the jews). Further the jews can and should be seen here; as I have previously argued, as supporting the less powerful faction in a civil war in order to prolong that civil war and thus place themselves in the most favourable political and economic situation as; essentially, king-makers.

Josephus is clearly trying to nitpick his way out of a blind alley into which Apion's argument has forced him and in doing so he cannot escape without taking some intellectual damage. His method of doing this is simply to try to use the bête noire of Greek and Roman political theory; the concept of tyranny, to suggest that the jews fought against Eastern tyrants (i.e. those Greeks and Romans commonly believed were manifestly decadent and despotic in equal measure), but in doing so he tacitly concedes that the jews had sided with the tyranny of one ruler against the tyranny of another (i.e. they clearly were not actually opposed to the concept of tyranny as the Greeks and Romans were).

To do this he tries to maximise the revulsion of his Greek and Roman audience with the contrived story based on the Esther literary archetype to illustrate the Eastern despotism of Ptolemy Physco, while he quickly glosses over the Eastern despotism of Cleopatra only stopping to mention the widely-accepted political slanders laid at her door by Augustan political propaganda before moving on to Julius Caesar's philo-Semitic policy-making.

Thus we can see both that Josephus is truly the ancient archetype for the modern Zionist propagandist as a fanatical and often highly contradictory partisan of the jews and that Apion was able to confound even so able an opponent as Josephus into making very damaging admissions when the latter tried to counter the anti-jewish intellectual school of thought that emanated from Alexandria.

Josephus continues thus:

'And if Germanicus was not able to make a distribution of corn to all the inhabitants of Alexandria, that only shows what a barren time it was, and how great a want there was then of corn, but tends nothing to the accusation of the Jews; for what all the emperors have thought of the Alexandrian Jews is well known, for this distribution of wheat was no otherwise omitted with regard to the Jews, than it was with regard to the other inhabitants of Alexandria. But they still were desirous to preserve what the kings had formerly entrusted to their care, I mean the custody of the river; nor did those kings think them unworthy of having the entire custody thereof, upon all occasions.' (29)

Now here we can see another of Josephus' rhetorical tactics on graphic display in so far as he seeks to imply that because Germanicus; the brother of Tiberius and stepson of Augustus, did not only distribute corn to the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans of Alexandria, but to the jews as well. This means that the jews could not have been a fifth column; as Apion argues they are, as if they were or were judged by Germanicus in any way to disloyal to the Empire then they would have not been allocated corn by him.

This argument is obviously fallacious as it presupposes the superior judgement of Germanicus and that he could not have made a mistake; being unfamiliar with the situation in Alexandria, or could have decided to allocate corn evenly to Roman subjects irrespective of their status in order o prevent any potential revolts caused by food shortages (i.e. a reason external to the preponderance or lack of virtue among the jews).

However the reason Josephus makes this claim is of interest to us in so far as it clearly indicates that he was having an extraordinary amount of difficulty in rebutting the argument that Apion had made against the jews in relation to their being a fifth column in every empire in which they have resided. In making his rhetorical counter using Germanicus Josephus is once trying to use Roman historical prejudices and common beliefs to his intellectual advantage in order to make up for the massive intellectual disadvantage he is facing in the lack of evidence he has to rebut the actual arguments of Apion and the anti-jewish intellectual school of thought emanating from Alexandria.

Germanicus; for those unacquainted with Roman history, was largely regarded as the superior brother of the two in relation to Tiberius and was held to embody the virtues that Tiberius was held to have lacked and while the latter was held to be a tyrant: the former was held to be a true Roman 'man of people' so-to-speak.

In essence it is rather like Josephus' claims about Aristotle in so far as its intention is that whether true or not: it would suggest to his contemporary Greek and Roman readership that the jews were a virtuous and much maligned people who had only been prosecuted by tyrants and those lacking in virtue. And that as such the jews were the direct or indirect source of all; or at least much, of what was good in the world and thus should be treated as social equals and religious betters.

References

(25) Joseph. Cont. Ap. 2:5

(26) Ibid.

(27) Suet. Jul. 84

(28) Harry Leon, 1960, 'The Jews of Ancient Rome', 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 9-10

(29) Joseph. Cont. Ap. 2:5

Posted 4th October by Karl Radl

….

P. CORNELI TACITI HISTORIARVM LIBER QVINTVS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

[1] Eiusdem anni principio Caesar Titus, perdomandae Iudaeae delectus a patre et privatis utriusque rebus militia clarus, maiore tum vi famaque agebat, certantibus provinciarum et exercituum studiis. Atque ipse, ut super fortunam crederetur, decorum se promptumque in armis ostendebat, comitate et adloquiis officia provocans ac plerumque in opere, in agmine gregario militi mixtus, incorrupto ducis honore. Tres eum in Iudaea legiones, quinta et decima et quinta decima, vetus Vespasiani miles, excepere. Addidit e Syria duodecimam et adductos Alexandria duoetvicensimanos tertianosque; comitabantur viginti sociae cohortes, octo equitum alae, simul Agrippa Sohaemusque reges et auxilia regis Antiochi validaque et solito inter accolas odio infensa Iudaeis Arabum manus, multi quos urbe atque Italia sua quemque spes acciverat occupandi principem adhuc vacuum. His cum copiis finis hostium ingressus composito agmine, cuncta explorans paratusque decernere, haud procul Hierosolymis castra facit.

[2] Sed quoniam famosae urbis supremum diem tradituri sumus, congruens videtur primordia eius aperire. Iudaeos Creta insula profugos novissima Libyae insedisse memorant, qua tempestate Saturnus vi Iovis pulsus cesserit regnis. Argumentum e nomine petitur: inclutum in Creta Idam montem, accolas Idaeos aucto in barbarum cognomento Iudaeos vocitari. Quidam regnante Iside exundantem per Aegyptum multitudinem ducibus Hierosolymo ac Iuda proximas in terras exoneratam; plerique Aethiopum prolem, quos rege Cepheo metus atque odium mutare sedis perpulerit. Sunt qui tradant Assyrios convenas, indigum agrorum populum, parte Aegypti potitos, mox proprias urbis Hebraeas- que terras et propiora Syriae coluisse. Clara alii Iudaeorum initia, Solymos, carminibus Homeri celebratam gentem, conditae urbi Hierosolyma nomen e suo fecisse.

[3] Plurimi auctores consentiunt orta per Aegyptum tabe quae corpora foedaret, regem Bocchorim adito Hammonis oraculo remedium petentem purgare regnum et id genus hominum ut invisum deis alias in terras avehere iussum. Sic conquisitum collectumque vulgus, postquam vastis locis relictum sit, ceteris per lacrimas torpentibus, Moysen unum exulum monuisse ne

quam deorum hominumve opem expectarent utrisque deserti, sed sibimet duce caelesti crederent, primo cuius auxilio praesentis miserias pepulissent. Adsensere atque omnium ignari fortuitum iter incipiunt. Sed nihil aeque quam inopia aquae fatigabat, iamque haud procul exitio totis campis procubuerant, cum grex asinorum agrestium e pastu in rupem nemore opacam concessit. Secutus Moyses coniectura herbidi soli largas aquarum venas aperit. Id levamen; et continuum sex dierum iter emensi septimo pulsis cultoribus obtinuere terras, in quis urbs et templum dicata.

[4] Moyses quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris mortalibus indidit. Profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra, rursum concessa apud illos quae nobis incesta. Effigiem animalis, quo monstrante errorem sitimque depulerant, penetrali sacravere, caeso ariete velut in contumeliam Hammonis; bos quoque immolatur, quoniam Aegyptii Apin colunt. Sue abstinent memoria cladis, quod ipsos scabies quondam turpaverat, cui id animal obnoxium. Longam olim famem crebris adhuc ieiuniis fatentur, et raptarum frugum argumentum panis Iudaicus nullo fermento detinetur. Septimo die otium placuisse ferunt, quia is finem laborum tulerit; dein blandiente inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae datum. Alii honorem eum Saturno haberi, seu principia religionis tradentibus Idaeis, quos cum Saturno pulsos et conditores gentis accepimus, seu quod de septem sideribus, quis mortales reguntur, altissimo orbe et praecipua potentia stella Saturni feratur, ac pleraque caelestium viam suam et cursus septenos per numeros commeare.

[5] Hi ritus quoquo modo inducti antiquitate defenduntur: cetera instituta, sinistra foeda, pravitate valuere. Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc congerebant, unde auctae Iudaeorum res, et quia apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnis alios hostile odium. Separati epulis, discreti cubilibus, proiectissima ad libidinem gens, alienarum concubitu abstinent; inter se nihil inlicitum. Circumcidere genitalia instituerunt ut diversitate noscantur. Transgressi in morem eorum idem usurpant, nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere. Augendae tamen multitudini consulitur; nam et necare quemquam ex agnatis nefas, animosque proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternos putant: hinc generandi amor et moriendi contemptus. Corpora condere quam cremare e more Aegyptio, eademque cura et de infernis persuasio, caelestium contra. Aegyptii pleraque animalia effigiesque compositas venerantur, Iudaei mente sola unumque numen intellegunt: profanos qui deum imagines mortalibus materiis in species hominum effingant; summum illud et aeternum neque imitabile neque interiturum. Igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sistunt; non regibus haec adulatio, non Caesaribus honor. Sed quia sacerdotes eorum tibia tympanisque concinebant, hedera vinciebantur vitisque aurea templo reperta, Liberum patrem coli, domitorem Orientis, quidam arbitrati sunt, nequaquam congruentibus institutis. Quippe Liber festos laetosque ritus posuit, Iudaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque.

[6] Terra finesque qua ad Orientem vergunt Arabia terminantur, a meridie Aegyptus obiacet, ab occasu Phoenices et mare, septentrionem e latere Syriae longe prospectant. Corpora hominum salubria et ferentia laborum. Rari imbres, uber solum: [exuberant] fruges nostrum ad morem praeterque eas balsamum et palmae. Palmetis proceritas et decor, balsamum modica arbor: ut quisque ramus intumuit, si Vim ferri adhibeas, pavent venae; fragmine lapidis aut testa aperiuntur; umor in usu medentium est. Praecipuum montium Libanum erigit, mirum dictu, tantos inter ardores opacum fidumque nivibus; idem amnem Iordanen alit funditque. Nec Iordanes

pelago accipitur, sed unum atque alterum lacum integer perfluit, tertio retinetur. Lacus immenso ambitu, specie maris, sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis pestifer, neque vento impellitur neque piscis aut suetas aquis volucris patitur. Inertes undae superiacta ut solido ferunt; periti imperitique nandi perinde attolluntur. Certo anni bitumen egerit, cuius legendi usum, ut ceteras artis, experientia docuit. Ater suapte natura liquor et sparso aceto concretus innatat; hunc manu captum, quibus ea cura, in summa navis trahunt: inde nullo iuvante influit oneratque, donec abscindas. Nec abscindere aere ferrove possis: fugit cruorem vestemque infectam sanguine, quo feminae per mensis exolvuntur. Sic veteres auctores, sed gnari locorum tradunt undantis bitumine moles pelli manuque trahi ad litus, mox, ubi vapore terrae, vi solis inaruerint, securibus cuneisque ut trabes aut saxa discindi.

[7] Haud procul inde campi quos ferunt olim uberes magnisque urbibus habitatos fulminum iactu arsisse; et manere vestigia, terramque ipsam, specie torridam, vim frugiferam perdidisse. Nam cuncta sponte edita aut manu sata, sive herba tenus aut flore seu solitam in speciem adolevere, atra et inania velut in cinerem vanescunt. Ego sicut inclitas quondam urbis igne caelesti flagrasse concesserim, ita halitu lacus infici terram, corrumpi superfusum spiritum, eoque fetus segetum et autumni putrescere reor, solo caeloque iuxta gravi. Et Belius amnis Iudaico mari inlabitur, circa cuius os lectae harenae admixto nitro in vitrum excoquuntur. Modicum id litus et egerentibus inexhaustum.

[8] Magna pars Iudaeae vicis dispergitur, habent et oppida; Hierosolyma genti caput. Illic immensae opulentiae templum, et primis munimentis urbs, dein regia, templum intimis clausum. Ad fores tantum Iudaeo aditus, limine praeter sacerdotes arcebantur. Dum Assyrios penes Medosque et Persas Oriens fuit, despectissima pars servientium: postquam Macedones praepolluere, rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus, quo minus taeterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est; nam ea tempestate Arsaces desciverat. Tum Iudaei Macedonibus invalidis, Parthis nondum adultis—et Romani procul erant—, sibi ipsi reges imposuere; qui mobilitate vulgi expulsi, resumpta per arma dominatione fugas civium, urbium eversiones, fratrum coniugum parentum neces aliaque solita regibus ausi superstitionem fovebant, quia honor sacerdotii firmamentum potentiae adsumebatur.

[9] Romanorum primus Cn. Pompeius Iudaeos domuit templumque iure victoriae ingressus est: inde vulgatum nulla intus deum effigie vacuam sedem et inania arcana. Muri Hierosolymorum diruti, delubrum mansit. Mox civili inter nos bello, postquam in dicionem M. Antonii provinciae cesserant, rex Parthorum Pacorus Iudaea potitus interfectusque a P. Ventidio, et Parthi trans Euphraten redacti: Iudaeos C. Sosius subegit. Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum victor Augustus auxit. Post mortem Herodis, nihil expectato Caesare, Simo quidam regium nomen invaserat. Is a Quintilio Varo obtinente Syriam punitus, et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis tripertito rexere. Sub Tiberio quies. Dein iussi a C. Caesare effigiem eius in templo locare arma potius sumpsere, quem motum Caesaris mors diremit. Claudius, defunctis regibus aut ad modicum redactis, Iudaeam provinciam equitibus Romanis aut libertis permisit, e quibus Antonius Felix per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem ius regium servili ingenio exercuit, Drusilla Cleopatrae et Antonii nepte in matrimonium accepta, ut eiusdem Antonii Felix progener, Claudius nepos esset.

[10] Duravit tamen patientia Iudaeis usque ad Gessium Florum procuratorem: sub eo bellum ortum. Et comprimere coeptantem Cestium Gallum Syriae legatum varia proelia ac saepius

adversa excepere. Qui ubi fato aut taedio occidit, missu Neronis Vespasianus fortuna famaque et egregiis ministris intra duas aestates cuncta camporum omnisque praeter Hierosolyma urbis victore exercitu tenebat. Proximus annus civili bello intentus quantum ad Iudaeos per otium transiit. Pace per Italiam parta et externae curae rediere: augebat iras quod soli Iudaei non cessissent; simul manere apud exercitus Titum ad omnis principatus novi eventus casusve utile videbatur.

[11] Igitur castris, uti diximus, ante moenia Hierosolymorum positis instructas legiones ostentavit: Iudaei sub ipsos muros struxere aciem, rebus secundis longius ausuri et, si pellerentur, parato perfugio. Missus in eos eques cum expeditis cohortibus ambigue certavit; mox cessere hostes et sequentibus diebus crebra pro portis proelia serebant, donec adsiduis damnis intra moenia pellerentur. Romani ad obpugnandum versi; neque enim dignum videbatur famem hostium opperiri, poscebantque pericula, pars virtute, multi ferocia et cupidine praemiorum. Ipsi Tito Roma et opes voluptatesque ante oculos; ac ni statim Hierosolyma conciderent, morari videbantur. Sed urbem arduam situ opera molesque firmaverant, quis vel plana satis munirentur. Nam duos collis in immensum editos claudebant muri per artem obliqui aut introrsus sinuati, ut latera obpugnantium ad ictus patescerent. Extrema rupis abrupta, et turres, ubi mons iuvisset, in sexagenos pedes, inter devexa in centenos vicenosque attollebantur, mira specie ac procul intuentibus pares. Alia intus moenia regiae circumiecta, conspicuoque fastigio turris Antonia, in honorem M. Antonii ab Herode appellata.

[12] Templum in modum arcis propriique muri, labore et opere ante alios; ipsae porticus, quis templum ambibatur, egregium propugnaculum. Fons perennis aquae, cavati sub terra montes et piscinae cisternaeque servandis imbribus. Providerant conditores ex diversitate morum crebra bella: inde cuncta quamvis adversus longum obsidium; et a Pompeio expugnatis metus atque usus pleraque monstravere. Atque per avaritiam Claudianorum temporum empto iure muniendi struxere muros in pace tamquam ad bellum, magna conluvie et ceterarum urbium clade aucti; nam pervicacissimus quisque illuc perfugerat eoque seditiosius agebant. Tres duces, totidem exercitus: extrema et latissima moenium Simo, mediam urbem Ioannes [quem et Bargioram vocabant], templum Eleazarus firmaverat. Multitudine et armis Ioannes ac Simo, Eleazarus loco pollebat: sed proelia dolus incendia inter ipsos, et magna vis frumenti ambusta. Mox Ioannes, missis per speciem sacrificandi qui Eleazarum manumque eius obtruncarent, templo potitur. Ita in duas factiones civitas discessit, donec propinquantibus Romanis bellum externum concordiam pareret.

[13] Evenerant prodigia, quae neque hostiis neque votis piare fas habet gens superstitioni obnoxia, religionibus adversa. Visae per caelum concurrere acies, rutilantia arma et subito nubium igne conlucere templum. Apertae repente delubri fores et audita maior humana vox excedere deos; simul ingens motus excedentium. Quae pauci in metum trahebant: pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur. Quae ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerat, sed vulgus more humanae cupidinis sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati ne adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur. Multitudinem obsessorum omnis aetatis, virile ac muliebre secus, sexcenta milia fuisse accepimus: arma cunctis, qui ferre possent, et plures quam pro numero audebant. Obstinatio viris feminisque par; ac si transferre sedis cogerentur, maior vitae metus quam mortis. Hanc adversus urbem gentemque Caesar Titus, quando impetus et subita belli locus abnueret, aggeribus vineisque certare statuit: dividuntur legionibus munia et quies

proeliorum fuit, donec cuncta expugnandis urbibus reperta apud veteres aut novis ingeniis struerentur.

[14] At Civilis post malam in Treviris pugnam reparato per Germaniam exercitu apud Vetera castra consedit, tutus loco, et ut memoria prosperarum illic rerum augescerent barbarorum animi. Secutus est eodem Cerialis, duplicatis copiis adventu secundae et tertiae decimae et quartae decimae legionum; cohortesque et alae iam pridem accitae post victoriam properaverant. Neuter ducum cunctator, sed arcebat latitudo camporum suopte ingenio umentium; addiderat Civilis obliquam in Rhenum molem, cuius obiectu revolutus amnis adiacentibus superfunderetur. Ea loci forma, incertis vadis subdola et nobis adversa: quippe miles Romanus armis gravis et nandi pavidus, Germanos fluminibus suetos levitas armorum et proceritas corporum attollit.

[15] Igitur lacessentibus Batavis ferocissimo cuique nostrorum coeptum certamen, deinde orta trepidatio, cum praealtis paludibus arma equi haurirentur. Germani notis vadis persultabant, omissa plerumque fronte latera ac terga circumvenientes. Neque ut in pedestri acie comminus certabatur, sed tamquam navali pugna vagi inter undas aut, si quid stabile occurrebat, totis illic corporibus nitentes, vulnerati cum integris, periti nandi cum ignaris in mutuam perniciem implicabantur. Minor tamen quam pro tumultu caedes, quia non ausi egredi paludem Germani in castra rediere. Eius proelii eventus utrumque ducem diversis animi motibus ad maturandum summae rei discrimen erexit. Civilis instare fortunae, Cerialis abolere ignominiam: Germani prosperis feroces, Romanos pudor excitaverat. Nox apud barbaros cantu aut clamore, nostris per iram et minas acta.

[16] Postera luce Cerialis equite et auxiliariis cohortibus frontem explet, in secunda acie legiones locatae, dux sibi delectos retinuerat ad improvisa. Civilis haud porrecto agmine, sed cuneis adstitit: Batavi Cugernique in dextro, laeva ac propiora flumini Transrhenani tenuere. Exhortatio ducum non more contionis apud universos, sed ut quosque suorum advehebantur. Cerialis veterem Romani nominis gloriam, antiquas recentisque victorias; ut perfidum ignavum victum hostem in aeternum exciderent, ultione magis quam proelio opus esse. Pauciores nuper cum pluribus certasse, ac tamen fusos Germanos, quod roboris fuerit: superesse qui fugam animis, qui vulnera tergo ferant. Proprios inde stimulos legionibus admovebat, domitores Britanniae quartadecimanos appellans; principem Galbam sextae legionis auctoritate factum; illa primum acie secundanos nova signa novamque aquilam dicaturos. Hinc praevectus ad Germanicum exercitum manus tendebat, ut suam ripam, sua castra sanguine hostium reciperarent. Alacrior omnium clamor, quis vel ex longa pace proelii cupido vel fessis bello pacis amor, praemiaque et quies in posterum sperabatur.

[17] Nec Civilis silentem struxit aciem, locum pugnae testem virtutis ciens: stare Germanos Batavosque super vestigia gloriae, cineres ossaque legionum calcantis. Quocumque oculos Romanus intenderet, captivitatem clademque et dira omnia obversari. Ne terrerentur vario Trevirici proelii eventu: suam illic victoriam Germanis obstitisse, dum omissis telis praeda manus impediunt: sed cuncta mox prospera et hosti contraria evenisse. Quae provideri astu ducis oportuerit, providisse, campos madentis et ipsis gnaros, paludes hostibus noxias. Rhenum et Germaniae deos in aspectu: quorum numine capesserent pugnam, coniugum parentum patriae memores: illum diem aut gloriosissimum inter maiores aut ignominiosum apud posteros fore. Ubi sono armorum tripudiisque—ita illis mos—adprobata sunt dicta, saxis glandibusque et ceteris

missilibus proelium incipitur, neque nostro milite paludem ingrediente et Germanis, ut elicerent, lacessentibus.

[18] Absumptis quae iaciuntur et ardescente pugna procursum ab hoste infestius: immensis corporibus et praelongis hastis fluitantem labantemque militem eminus fodiebant; simul e mole, quam eductam in Rhenum rettulimus, Bructerorum cuneus transnatavit. Turbata ibi res et pellebatur sociarum cohortium acies, cum legiones pugnam excipiunt suppressaque hostium ferocia proelium aequatur. Inter quae perfuga Batavus adiit Cerialem, terga hostium promittens, si extremo paludis eques mitteretur: solidum illa et Cugernos, quibus custodia obvenisset, parum intentos. Duae alae cum perfuga missae incauto hosti circumfunduntur. Quod ubi clamore cognitum, legiones a fronte incubuere, pulsique Germani Rhenum fuga petebant. Debellatum eo die foret, si Romana classis sequi maturasset: ne eques quidem institit, repente fusis imbribus et propinqua nocte.

[19] Postera die quartadecima legio in superiorem pro vinciam Gallo Annio missa: Cerialis exercitum decima ex Hispania legio supplevit: Civili Chaucorum auxilia venere. Non tamen ausus oppidum Batavorum armis tueri, raptis quae ferri poterant, ceteris iniecto igni, in insulam concessit, gnarus deesse navis efficiendo ponti, neque exercitum Romanum aliter transmissurum: quin et diruit molem a Druso Germanico factam Rhenumque prono alveo in Galliam ruentem, disiectis quae morabantur, effudit. Sic velut abacto amne tenuis alveus insulam inter Germanosque continentium terrarum speciem fecerat. Transiere Rhenum Tutor quoque et Classicus et centum tredecim Trevirorum senatores, in quis fuit Alpinius Montanus, quem a Primo Antonio missum in Gallias superius memoravimus. Comitabatur eum frater D. Alpinius; simul ceteri miseratione ac donis auxilia concibant inter gentis periculorum avidas.

[20] Tantumque belli superfuit ut praesidia cohortium alarum legionum uno die Civilis quadripertito invaserit, decimam legionem Arenaci, secundam Batavoduri et Grinnes Vadamque, cohortium alarumque castra, ita divisis copiis ut ipse et Verax, sorore eius genitus, Classicusque ac Tutor suam quisque manum traherent, nec omnia patrandi fiducia, sed multa ausis aliqua in parte fortunam adfore: simul Cerialem neque satis cautum et pluribus nuntiis huc illuc cursantem posse medio intercipi. Quibus obvenerant castra decimanorum, obpugnationem legionis arduam rati egressum militem et caedendis materiis operatum turbavere, occiso praefecto castrorum et quinque primoribus centurionum paucisque militibus: ceteri se munimentis defendere. Interim Germanorum manus Batavoduri interrumpere inchoatum pontem nitebantur: ambiguum proelium nox diremit.

[21] Plus discriminis apud Grinnes Vadamque. Vadam Civilis, Grinnes Classicus obpugnabant: nec sisti poterant interfecto fortissimo quoque, in quis Briganticus praefectus alae ceciderat, quem fidum Romanis et Civili avunculo infensum diximus. Sed ubi Cerialis cum delecta equitum manu subvenit, versa fortuna; praecipites Germani in amnem aguntur. Civilis dum fugientis retentat, agnitus petitusque telis relicto equo transnatavit; idem Veraci effugium: Tutorem Classicumque adpulsae luntres vexere. Ne tum quidem Romana classis pugnae adfuit, et iussum erat, sed obstitit formido et remiges per alia militiae munia dispersi. Sane Cerialis parum temporis ad exequenda imperia dabat, subitus consiliis set eventu clarus: aderat fortuna, etiam ubi artes defuissent; hinc ipsi exercituique minor cura disciplinae. Et paucos post dies, quamquam periculum captivitatis evasisset, infamiam non vitavit.

[22] Profectus Novaesium Bonnamque ad visenda castra, quae hiematuris legionibus erigebantur, navibus remeabat disiecto agmine, incuriosis vigiliis. Animadversum id Germanis et insidias composuere: electa nox atra nubibus, et prono amne rapti nullo prohibente vallum ineunt. Prima caedes astu adiuta: incisis tabernaculorum funibus suismet tentoriis coopertos trucidabant. Aliud agmen turbare classem, inicere vincla, trahere puppis; utque ad fallendum silentio, ita coepta caede, quo plus terroris adderent, cuncta clamoribus miscebant. Romani vulneribus exciti quaerunt arma, ruunt per vias, pauci ornatu militari, plerique circum brachia torta veste et strictis mucronibus. Dux semisomnus ac prope intectus errore hostium servatur: namque praetoriam navem vexillo insignem, illic ducem rati, abripiunt. Cerialis alibi noctem egerat, ut plerique credidere, ob stuprum Claudiae Sacratae mulieris Vbiae. Vigiles flagitium suum ducis dedecore excusabant, tamquam iussi silere ne quietem eius turbarent; ita intermisso signo et vocibus se quoque in somnum lapsos. Multa luce revecti hostes captivis navibus, praetoriam triremem flumine Lupia donum Veledae traxere.

[23] Civilem cupido incessit navalem aciem ostentandi: complet quod biremium quaeque simplici ordine agebantur; adiecta ingens luntrium vis, tricenos quadragenosque ferunt, armamenta Liburnicis solita; et simul captae luntres sagulis versicoloribus haud indecore pro velis iuvabantur. Spatium velut aequoris electum quo Mosae fluminis os amnem Rhenum Oceano adfundit. Causa instruendae classis super insitam genti vanitatem ut eo terrore commeatus Gallia adventantes interciperentur. Cerialis miraculo magis quam metu derexit classem, numero imparem, usu remigum, gubernatorum arte, navium magnitudine potiorem. His flumen secundum, illi vento agebantur: sic praevecti temptato levium telorum iactu dirimuntur. Civilis nihil ultra ausus trans Rhenum concessit: Cerialis insulam Batavorum hostiliter populatus agros villasque Civilis intactas nota arte ducum sinebat, cum interim flexu autumni et crebris per aequinoctium imbribus superfusus amnis palustrem humilemque insulam in faciem stagni opplevit. Nec classis aut commeatus aderant, castraque in plano sita vi fluminis differebantur.

[24] Potuisse tunc opprimi legiones et voluisse Germanos, sed dolo a se flexos imputavit Civilis; neque abhorret vero, quando paucis post diebus deditio insecuta est. Nam Cerialis per occultos nuntios Batavis pacem, Civili veniam ostentans, Veledam propinquosque monebat fortunam belli, tot cladibus adversam, opportuno erga populum Romanum merito mutare: caesos Treviros, receptos Vbios, ereptam Batavis patriam; neque aliud Civilis amicitia partum quam vulnera fugas luctus. Exulem eum et extorrem recipientibus oneri, et satis peccavisse quod totiens Rhenum transcenderint. Si quid ultra moliantur, inde iniuriam et culpam, hinc ultionem et deos fore.

[25] Miscebantur minis promissa; et concussa Transrhenanorum fide inter Batavos quoque sermones orti: non prorogandam ultra ruinam, nec posse ab una natione totius orbis servitium depelli. Quid profectum caede et incendiis legionum nisi ut plures validioresque accirentur? Si Vespasiano bellum navaverint, Vespasianum rerum potiri: sin populum Romanum armis vocent, quotam partem generis humani Batavos esse? Respicerent Raetos Noricosque et ceterorum onera sociorum: sibi non tributa, sed virtutem et viros indici. Proximum id libertati; et si dominorum electio sit, honestius principes Romanorum quam Germanorum feminas tolerari. Haec vulgus, proceres atrociora: Civilis rabie semet in arma trusos; illum domesticis malis excidium gentis opposuisse. Tunc infensos Batavis deos, cum obsiderentur legiones, interficerentur legati, bellum uni necessarium, ferale ipsis sumeretur. Ventum ad extrema, ni resipiscere incipiant et noxii capitis poena paenitentiam fateantur.

[26] Non fefellit Civilem ea inclinatio et praevenire statuit, super taedium malorum etiam spe vitae, quae plerumque magnos animos infringit. Petito conloquio scinditur Nabaliae fluminis pons, in cuius abrupta progressi duces, et Civilis ita coepit: 'si apud Vitellii legatum defenderer, neque facto meo venia neque dictis fides debebatur; cuncta inter nos inimica: hostilia ab illo coepta, a me aucta erant: erga Vespasianum vetus mihi observantia, et cum privatus esset, amici vocabamur. Hoc Primo Antonio notum, cuius epistulis ad bellum actus sum, ne Germanicae legiones et Gallica iuventus Alpis transcenderent. Quae Antonius epistulis, Hordeonius Flaccus praesens monebat: arma in Germania movi, quae Mucianus in Syria, Aponius in Moesia, Flavianus in Pannonia * * * '