Suetonius on the Jews

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus - better known to students of history everywhere as simply Suetonius - is one of the great historians of the Roman era who wrote twelve accounts of the various reigns of twelve Roman emperors. He continues to be a primary source for both popular historical accounts of this time period and as an invaluable source for academic historians studying both the empire and historical writing at the time. Suetonius - unlike other near contemporaries of his - did not make any attacks on the jews as such, but he - in the course of his historical writing - does note their activities from time to time.

So, what Suetonius has to say about this of obvious interest to us from an anti-Semitic point of view, because as a source he is both neutral on the question of jews and in a position to take a wider view of events as opposed to the more usual narrow view that pervades Roman historical writing.

As Suetonius divides his work up into twelve different reigns and the comments about jews are made on three different occasions in three of these twelve books (i.e., one in each book). Thus, we can only make very general surmises as to the situation as related by Suetonius, but they are still of value as they lend weight to the writings of more polemical authors on this question.

The first mention we find of jews in Suetonius’ work is after the death of Julius Caeser where he records the following:

‘Thereupon the musicians and professional mourners, who had walked in the funeral train wearing the robes that he had himself worn at his four triumphs, tore these in pieces and flung them on the flames – to which veterans who had assisted at his triumphs added the arms that they had then borne. Many women in the audience sacrificed their jewellery together with their children’s breast-plaques and robes. Public grief was enhanced by crowds of foreigners lamenting in their own fashion, especially Jews, who came flocking to the forum several nights in succession.’ (1)

There are several things to note on the basis of this history in that it indicates that there was a significant colony of jews in Rome by the time of Caesar’s death, which is important in that it tells us that jews could well have been playing a notable role in the affairs of state - albeit behind the scenes - at this fairly early stage.

The second is something Henry Ford most famously pointed out in ‘The International Jew’ in so far as jews have a tendency to try to be something too hard. So, in Ford’s case: they tried to be American but ended up being hyper-American and in the case of Rome they ended up being hyper-Roman. This is demonstrated in the fact that jews ‘especially’ ‘flocked to the forum’ to pay tribute to Caesar who they naturally saw as an object to venerate for their own best egoistic advantage as those who did not venerate Caesar would surely have been looked upon as siding with his murderers lead by Brutus.

The third is more conjectural in that Suetonius mentions how many Romans sacrificed jewellery to throw it in the flames as an offering to a great warrior and statesman in the true Roman model. Now obviously jewellery would have included large amounts of precious metals, stones and gems which would not have been melted or otherwise rendered useless by the funeral pyre (as it isn’t likely to have been hot enough). Thus, it is plausible to suggest that part of the reason for the jews flocking to the forum for several night was to pick clean the offerings to the divine Julius to clean up, re-use and sell on to the highest bidder.

It might be conjectural, but if Suetonius’ account is accurate, it firstly explains why the jews should flock to the forum at night in such numbers and secondly why Suetonius deigns to mention that the jews were particularly drawn to the forum under cover of darkness. Perhaps Suetonius suspected some mischief was afoot from the jews but being the neutral (by Roman standards) scholar of history he was he could not uncover any proof that this was the case, but he could make mention of the fact that this was rather odd and hence worthy of being recorded. As otherwise why bother and single out the jews for special mention?

The next reference to the jews is from the reign of the Emperor Tiberius and reads as follows:

‘He abolished foreign cults at Rome, particularly the Egyptian and Jewish, forcing all citizens who had embraced their superstitious faiths to burn their religious vestments and other accessories. Jews of military age were removed to unhealthy regions, on the pretext of drafting them into the army; the others of the same race or of similar beliefs were expelled from the city and threatened with slavery if they defied the order. Tiberius also banished all astrologers except such as asked for his forgiveness and undertook to make no more predictions.’ (2)

Once again there are several points of note here in that Suetonius relates how Tiberius sought to suppress the growing menace of foreign religious cults to Roman law and order. We can gather from Suetonius’ wording that this was a wide problem and had greater implications than just the suppression of Judaism in the capital. That said Tiberius is telling us that by this time Judaism was aggressively seeking converts among Roman citizens and as it denied the very basis of both Roman law (the worship of the Emperor) and its adherents viewed themselves as above Roman law (only subject to jewish religious law) then we can see that Tiberius was quite right to suppress it: as these fashionable cult followers of Judaism more than likely had no clue about the nature of the religion they were ‘joining’.

One may suspect that Judaism was presented by the jews in Rome as another ‘mystery cult’ which can be argued on the basis that Suetonius refers to it in the same breath as he does the worship of Isis (the Egyptian cult that needed fairly frequent suppression in Rome because of its subversive nature). The probability is that the jews rationalised their biologically-based religion to gain converts by using one of two simple devices later used in Judaism in general: jewish mysticism (which would in effect cover up the actual doctrines of the religion with appeals to the ‘mystery’ of it all) and/or the use of an early form of the Noahide laws.

The Noahide laws - for those unacquainted with the concept - are a small set of mitzvoth (commandants) that are supposed to be easy for non-jews; who in Judaism are extremely subject to the ‘evil inclination’ (which can be transliterated to mean ‘the gentile spirit’), to follow so that they can enter Gan Eden (heaven) with the jews as the servants of the jews. Since in Judaism observant jews have to follow the taryag mitzvoth (613 commandments) to go straight to Gan Eden rather than going through Gehenna first (roughly equivalent to purgatory) and to break a commandment is to have sacrificed ones emunah (which can be transliterated to mean ‘the jewish spirit’ but is usually translated to mean faith which doesn’t cover its actual meaning) to take the ‘evil inclination’ in its stead (i.e., temporarily sacrificed their chosen status to enjoy the evil of the gentiles).

If one adds to that the biological dimension of Judaism - as represented in the jewish caste system - then ones realises that the basis of the idea of the ‘Noahides’ is that those born non-jews are genetically inferior to born jews even if they come to be regarded as having been ‘born with jewish souls’ (the only way one is allowed to convert to Judaism in essence).

It is thus interesting to note that the jews were attracted converts and to account for that we can only turn - as I have said - to either the jews using a form of jewish mysticism (to cover up the not very pleasant doctrines regarding non-jews) and/or an early form of the Noahide laws.

It is interesting that Tiberius should have sent all the male jews to the ‘unhealthy regions’ - probably a reference to the marshes - under the pretext of trying to make men of the male jews in the legions. (3) One wonders whether Tiberius saw that the jews were trying to raise insurrection against him much as they did under the leadership of Chrestus during the reign of Claudius and took pre-emptive action to behead the conspiracy by taking away its followers and manpower. (4) Whether Tiberius left the male jews to die in the ‘unhealthy regions’ is not recorded, but we may presume that he did.

However, I think it is likely that his action in sending the male jews to the ‘unhealthy regions’ was to behead such a conspiracy as is indicated by his banishing the remaining jews and their converts and threatening them with the reduction to slavery if they tried to remain in Rome. This latter point directly implies what Juvenal stated so well about jews in that they thought they were above Roman law (5) and so Tiberius was forced to take drastic action to force them to leave Rome and stop trying to incite revolt against his rightful rule using their ‘converts’ as a shield against the righteous fury of the Roman gladius.

The third and final direct mention of the jews by Suetonius is - as previously pointed out - from his work on the reign of the Emperor Claudius. Suetonius tells us that:

‘It now became illegal for foreigners to adopt the names of Roman families, and any who usurped the rights of Roman citizens were executed in the Esquiline Field.

[...]

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.’ (6)

There are two things to note here. Firstly, is the obvious connotation that the foreigners in general - including the jews - were taking the names of Roman families - legally or not - and trying to claim the rights - including free bread and water paid for and provided by the Roman state - given to Roman citizens. I think it is important to realise here that when Suetonius says Roman citizens it would be better translated as ‘citizens of the city of Rome’ as a Roman citizen is a general term, while a citizen of the city of Rome had more rights than did the ordinary citizen of the Roman empire. One of these - as I have said - was the right to have free bread and water provided by the state and another - which was exported to the provinces in later years - was the free attendance of public games, races and banquets.

It is therefore rather obvious why a foreigner - jews included - would want to get in on this particular act and we may also note that this may again be an example of jews adopting Roman names to camouflage the fact that they were jews. Much as jews in Judea often went one of two ways: either being hyper-jewish (i.e., the first Hasidim) (7) or they became hyper-Greek (i.e., the Hellenizing jews so abused in the later Tanakh).

In the latter case the jews tended to adopt Greek names, the Greek language and Greek ideas (in essence becoming hyper-Greek and therefore not very Greek at all) although there was some spectrum of compromise available as with one of the few jewish thinkers extant from this time: Philo (i.e., trying to reconcile the Written Torah with Greek philosophy much as Saadia Gaon later tried to do). One wonders why - if this example of the problem of jewish assimilation and all it entailed was in so well-known a classical work as Suetonius - the thinkers of the 19^th and 20^th centuries by enlarge couldn’t recognise the basic danger. (8)

Secondly, we come one of the largest and longest running academic controversies of all time: the issue of ‘Chrestus’. Christians tend to transliterate this into ‘Christus’, but this is wishful thinking on their part as scholars have outlined that the text clearly says ‘Chrestus’ not ‘Christus’ and even if it did say ‘Christus’ there is no reason - as far as I can ascertain (i.e., without starting off having assumed your conclusion) - for believing it to be anything more than a mention of an odd rebellious cult rather than the nascent Christians in Rome. (9) However, having stated my opinion on that issue I will focus on the jewish aspect of this comment by Suetonius.

Here Suetonius is telling us simply that the jews had revolted against the Roman government in Rome itself and were causing ‘continuous disturbance’ to the population. This probably indicates that what was happening was not a wholesale insurrection - as there certainly weren’t enough jews or converts to do that - and there is no mention of the use of the praetorian guard, the legions or the auxilia to crush a rebellion which we would expect if it had been an insurrection.

The likelihood is that Chrestus - probably either a jewish rabble-rouser or mentally-ill mystic with delusions of grandeur - stirred up the jews to start a campaign against the Roman authorities under the likely presumption that divine aid would be forthcoming if he did so. Of course, the legions of angels didn’t turn up to massacre the goyim and Chrestus - who was probably crucified (ironically enough) - lost the ensuing struggle. It is possible that Chrestus may have been influenced by the ideas of the Hasidim and particularly the zealot community (that were certainly at least somewhat known by the jewish communities throughout the empire), which advocated the violent and bloody overthrow of Roman government and power to bring about a jewish superpower - led by the jewish messiah - that would rule the goyim in the name of Yahweh.

Claudius, of course, took the logical option to deal with the problem after Chrestus had been suppressed: he expelled all the jews from Rome. In fact, there is other evidence that Claudius was something of a budding anti-Semite as the result of jewish behaviour. (10)

All in all, Suetonius offers much information to us and can be used to back up quite a wide range of arguments about the conduct of the jews in ancient and classical times. Once again, I am forced to note that anti-Semites have been very slow to appreciate the value of Suetonius’ comments as they offer much opportunity to attack the jews from a direct they do not have prepared answers for.

References

(1) Suet. Iul. 84

(2) Ibid. Tib. 36

(3)  Much as the Russian empire much later tried to do the same thing by selecting part of the male jew population every where and trying to raise them to be good Russian patriots and Orthodox Christians in the Tsars armies. This, of course, failed, was subject to jewish corruption (the rabbinical families never got their sons selected in this way) and only succeeded in creating a caste of potential jewish traitors inside the Russian army much like the Mamluks had earlier proved to be in the Ottoman empire.

(4) Suet. Claud. 25

(5) Juv. 14

(6) Suet. Claud. 25

(7) It should be understand that the followers of the movement that uses the Baal Shem Tov (or Besht) as its figurehead adopted its name from this time as a parallel they saw in the past for their own time. On the Baal Shem Tov’s life see Moshe Rosman, 1996, ‘Founder of Hasidim: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov’, 1^st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley and on his ideas see Jacob Schochet, 1995, ‘The Mystical Dimension’, 3 Vols., 2^nd Edition, Kehot: New York.

(8) An interesting anthology of discussions of the thought and reactions of intellectuals, politicians and the man in the street on this topic can be found in Helmut Walser-Smith (Ed.), 2001, ‘Protestants, Catholics and Jews in Germany, 1800-1914’, 1^st Edition, Berg: New York. Of particular note is Walser-Smith and Clark’s assertion on p. 13 (in their chapter ‘The Fate of Nathan’) that by 1905 (based on the official jewish statistics compiled by the community) one third of all jewish marriages in Berlin were between a jew and a German. It seems that the lessons of Rome were not learned by the intellectuals and were just ignored in favour of the latest fashionable superstition.

(9) Compare to the potential mention of Christiani in Suet. Ner. 16.

(10)  Revilo Oliver, 2007, ‘The Jewish Strategy’, 2^nd Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, pp. 17-23; also see my article analysing this: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-emperor-claudius-on-the-jews