Marcus Valerius Martialis - better known as Martial - is a renowned Roman poet particularly noted and treasured for his Epigrams, which have and continue to provide a large amount of valuable information for historians and scholars of ancient Rome. What is less well known about Martial is that he used his poetic talents to launch attacks the jews in several of his less quoted Epigrams: sometimes directly and sometimes in passing.
There are three principal themes to Martial’s epigrammatic attacks on the jews:
A) That the jews are a dirty and unclean people.
B) That the jews are a lecherous people and frequently attempt to seduce others.
C) That the jews are tricksters, thieves, liars and frauds.
It has frequently been suggested on the basis of ancient accounts - such as Martial’s - of the jews that it shows that anti-Semitism is an abstract created to fit the jews and not the natural result of jewish action provoking gentile resentment (i.e. it is a fantasy-based not a reality-based intellectual position). This to my mind is a false dichotomy as it invokes two different periods (usually the classical world for poor and the medieval/early modern world for rich) to ‘prove’ that anti-Semitism has not been consistent in its arguments (which ignores the natural evolution of thought I might add), but I would point out that this argument compares two different periods in jewish history and of course different jews as if they were exactly the same.
So how on earth does it prove anything other than that jews were perceived in the ancient and classical worlds as lowly scoundrels and in the medieval and early modern worlds as rich scoundrels?
The only contradiction is that of arguing that jews must necessarily have held the same station in periods centuries apart (which is obviously absurd, but never the less is frequently believed to be a powerful argument against anti-Semitism for reasons I cannot seem to discover)! (1)
Having briefly cleaned up that frequent objection to the use of ancient and classical authors by anti-Semites: we can move on to Martial’s first mention of the jews in his Epigrams.
To wit:
‘Of the odour of a lake whence the water has retired; of the miasma which rise from the sulphurous waters of Albula; of the putrid stench of a marine fish-pond; of a lazy goat in amorous dalliance; of the old shoes of a tired veteran; of a fleece twice drenched in Tyrian dye; of the fasting breath of the Jews; of that of wretches under accusation; of the expiring lamp of the filthy Leda; of ointment made of the dregs of Sabine oil; of a fox in flight, or of the nest of the viper,----of all these things, Bassa, I would rather smell than smell like you.’ (2)
Martial’s meaning here might not immediately be obvious to the modern reader, but it can be simply explained by Martial’s last phrase: ‘I would rather smell than smell like you’. When you reference this to what Martial says about jewish halitosis it becomes clear: Martial is saying that when a jew fasts (which are fairly frequent in Judaism) his breath smells as the ‘putrid stench of a marine fish pond.’ (3)
This is quite possibly the first mention of the legendary ‘foetor judaicus’ - the ‘jewish stench’ - that has long been argued to be a made-up accusation on the basis of the belief that this stench indicated the impurity of the jews and the fact they were in league with the Devil to medieval Europeans. (4) Whether or not the jewish stench emanated from a supposed pact with the Devil or their ritual impurity: it does suggest an origin for the jewish stench that doesn’t run foul of the commandment for frequent ritual bathing of jews in the communal mikveh.
That origin is simple: a form of halitosis that was not unique to jews, (5) but so common among them that Europeans for a millennium or more found utterly foul and presumed that it came from their bodies not just their mouths. It is also suggested by the fact that medieval Europeans believed that the jewish stench came from the inside of the jew not the outside, which suggests it wasn’t so much they weren’t clean but rather that there was something about them that smelt particularly bad.
In his next epigrammatic reference Martial continues to develop his attack on the jews as a people when he writes:
‘You grant your favours, Caelia, to Parthians, to Germans, to Dacians; and despise not the homage of Cilicians and Cappadocians. To you journeys the Egyptian gallant from the city of Alexandria, and the swarthy Indian from the waters of the Eastern Ocean; nor do you shun the embraces of circumcised Jews; nor does the Alan, on his Sarmatic steed, pass by you. How comes it that, though a Roman girl, no attention on the part of a Roman citizen is agreeable to you?’ (6)
What Martial is telling us here is that he - and Romans like him - regarded the jews as a filthy and sexually lecherous group of people. Even if a woman - like Caelia to whom Martial addresses his Epigram - had a sexually promiscuous reputation then it was regarded as the epitome of vice and disgrace to have sexual intercourse with a jew, an Alan or an Egyptian (all of whom were greatly looked down in ancient Roman society for different reasons although naturally jews and Egyptians tended to be grouped together). (7)
If we read this epigram in the context of Martial’s earlier suggestion that jews are filthy and smell very bad (8) as well as Martial’s mention of the mark of the covenant - the circumcision of the foreskin among the jews - it can be reasonably argued that what Martial is getting at is that the jews are hypocrites and is lambasting them as such.
By this we mean that if Martial had heard or read a little about Judaism - as is very probable by his mention of the ritual of circumcision and his later knowledge of jewish ideas about oaths and vows - he would have known that an integral part of Judaism and jewish culture has always been the idea of their separation from the rest of humanity that Philostratus took considerable exception to. (9)
By suggesting that even jews willingly come to Caelia’s bed for sexual reasons then Martial is pointing out - with something of a literary chortle - how the jews don’t obey their own religious rules (not ‘spilling the seed’ with non-jewish women as this would produce impure children such as in the Biblical case of Hagar and lead to ‘idol worship’) when they think they can get away with it and that they will seduce anything and everything even Caelia (who is obviously not the most discerning of ladies with her favours [i.e., that the jews are barbarians and have no taste even in the bedroom]).
Martial then picks up another a theme when he addresses another aspect of this hypocritical grasping nature when he points out that the jews are taught to falsely beg by their mothers so that they don’t have to work, but can enjoy all the fruits of the toil of others.
To wit:
‘You ask why I so often go to my small domain at arid Momentum and the humble household at my farm? There is no place in town, Sparsus, where a poor man can either think or rest One cannot live for schoolmasters in the morning, corn grinders at night, and braziers' hammers all day and night. Here the money-changer indolently rattles piles of Nero's rough coins on his dirty counter; there a beater of Spanish gold belabours his worn stone with shining mallet. Nor does the fanatic rabble of Bellona cease from its clamour, nor the gabbling sailor with his piece of wreck hung over his shoulder; nor the Jew boy, brought up to begging by his mother, nor the blear-eyed huckster of matches. Who can enumerate the various interruptions to sleep at Rome? As well might you tell how many hands in the city strike the cymbals, when the moon under eclipse is assailed with the sound of the Colchian magic. You, Sparsus, are ignorant of such things, living, as you do, in luxurious ease on your Petilian domain; whose mansion, though on a level plane, overlooks the lofty hills which surround it; who enjoy the country in the city, with a Roman vine-dresser, and a vintage not to be surpassed on the Falernian mount. Within your own premises is a retired carriage drive; in your deep recesses sleep and repose are unbroken by the noise of tongues: and no daylight penetrates unless purposely admitted. But I am awakened by the laughter of the passing crowd; and all Rome is at my bed-side. Whenever, overcome with weariness, I long for repose, I repair to my country-house.’ (10)
In this epigram to Sparsus: Martial uses the jews as part of the justification as to why he spends so much time on his estates in the country, because the jews are one of the notable and noisy problems on Roman streets with their habitual fraudulent begging, which Martial says their mothers taught them (or ‘supped in with their mother’s milk’ as one Spanish jewess put it according to a story recounted by Mocatta).
We can infer that Martial means that the jews engage in fraudulent begging by his placement of the problem of jewish beggars next to ‘hucksters of matches’ (for Roman lamps) and the notoriously drunk ‘gabbling sailors’ trying to pawn off some cheap trinket or another for money to spend on cups of wine. (11)
This informs us that Martial regarded jews as both a menace and as inherently dishonest tricksters who have been brought up to do it by their mothers and their religion: as Martial would have probably known that the maternal ancestry was - then as now - key to determining whether a jew is a jew in jewish religious law (which we now called halakhah). We can suggest that Martial probably knew this, because as we have seen Martial indirectly pokes fun at jewish religious belief and their hypocrisy when compared to the actions of the jews in general.
In his final epigrammatic mention of the jews: Martial does not disappoint us. He finally takes the bull by the horns and addresses the jews directly (12) via one of their number who had dared to steal his work and claim it was his own.
To wit:
‘As for the fact that you are exceedingly envious and everywhere carping at my writings, I pardon you, circumcised poet; you have your reasons. Nor am I at all concerned that, while carping at my verses, you steal them; for this too, circumcised poet, you have your reasons. This however, circumcised poet, annoys me, that, though you were born in the heart of Jerusalem, you attempt to seduce the object of my affections. You deny that such is the case, and swear by the temples of Jupiter. I do not believe you; swear, circumcised poet, by Anchialus.’ (13)
Martial here perhaps makes mention of one of the first recorded instances of what we call ‘chutzpah’. In this case the sheer audacity of a jew to frequently attack Martial’s poetry in public and then steal Martial’s poetry to present it as his own work. Of course: this is best understood in terms of egoism where the jewish poet was essentially jealous of Martial’s poetic skills and reputation so he did his best - evidently it wasn’t good enough - to attack Martial’s reputation in order that he - the jew - might be better known and more widely regarded because of it.
In order to buttress this attempt to destroy Martial’s reputation the jewish poet then published or recited Martial’s own verses as his own to suggest that in fact he is a greater poet than Martial ever was, because at the time it would have been much harder for Martial to prove that the jewish poet had stolen his work and used it as his own. This is also perhaps one of the first instances of jewish plagiarism we have on record!
This interpretation is confirmed by the end of the first part of Martial’s epigrammatic rejoinder by stating that the jewish poet ‘has his reasons’, which implies - on the basis of Martial’s other comments about jewish lechery, deceit and lack of cleanliness - that Martial regards this as something fundamental to both Judaism and jews as a people (i.e., something a little more than ‘one bad egg’).
This is further confirmed by Martial’s sharp understanding of the willingness of the jewish poet to swear a false oath/vow to Jupiter to the effect he did not steal Martial’s work and present it as his own.
Martial’s retort is simple and highly effective:
‘Make that same oath/vow to Yahweh: I dare you.’ (14)
As Benovitz has argued - but has missed this reference by Martial - the famous and highly controversial Kol Nidre prayer said at Yom Kippur has part of its origin among the jews of ancient Rome and was somewhat influenced by the Roman ideas about human and divine oaths and vows. (15)
So perhaps if one is to take the worst possible interpretation of the Kol Nidre - that it invalidates jewish oaths and vows (to either or both non-jews or jews) - then one could potentially furnish support for the argument that the origins of the Kol Nidre don’t lie in forced conversions to Christianity, but rather in jewish attitudes to non-jews that both explicit and implicit in historic and current Judaism.
This sharp recognition of the inherent falsity of the jewish poet’s claim to have sworn to Jupiter that he had done no such thing also demonstrates that Martial at the very least was aware of the educated Roman discourse on the jews and Judaism. Martial’s sharp wit noticed both the ostensible doctrines that forbade the jews to do many things, but also the fact that the jews carried on regardless when they thought they could get away with it or that it was to their advantage to do it at the time.
In light of all this we can begin to see a different side to Martial and his poetry not simply that of a gifted artist and linguist but also of a Roman intellectual who was a dedicated foe of the jews and used his gifts and fame to make his audience see that there was a rabid wolf close to their door.
It is just a shame they did not heed Martial’s timely and beautifully worded warning of the danger that was nearly upon them.
References
(1) One recentish author to follow in this established intellectual rut is Robert Wistrich in his 1200-page magnum opus: Robert Wistrich, 2010, ‘A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York, but such notable authors on and scholars of anti-Semitism as Leon Poliakov, Matthias Bunzl, Gavin Langmuir among others have all followed this argument in varying degrees.
(2) Mart. Epi. 4.4
(3) For additional context please see Ibid., 1.50
(4) Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia, 1988, ‘The Myth of Ritual Murder: Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 132-134; Jacob Marcus, 1960, ‘The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book 315 – 1791’, 2nd Edition, The Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 143; 165-167
(5) Quite probably due to their unusual diet and food preparation techniques.
(6) Mart. Epi. 7.30
(7) As in Suet. Tib. 36.
(8) Mart. Epi. 4.4
(9) Philostr. V A 5.33
(10) Mart. Epi. 12.57
(11) The great Roman satirist Juvenal implicitly agrees with Martial’s assessment of this in Juv. 8.
(12) This is indicated by the title of the epigram: ‘On a Jew: a Rival Poet’.
(13) Mart. Epi. 11.94
(14) Anchialus is often held to be a corruption of ‘As the Lord wills it’, which would have been part of the way that jews ended their prayers so in essence Martial is demanding that the jewish poet pray to Yahweh and make a truthful oath on that prayer.
(15) Moshe Benovitz, 1998, ‘Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Offerings’, 1st Edition, Scholars Press: Atlanta, pp. 137-143