THE ORIGINS OF THE ANTI-JEWISH MYTH IN THE GREEK WORLD, Jacopo Reale

Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism-Part 1

Abstract: An exposition on the history of European religious and political culture, which develops the theme of the perception of Judaism and Jewish presence. From an educational perspective, the analysis of texts and materials aims to provide a contemporary interpretation of the etiology of religious and racial hatred. Jacopo Reale developed this intervention on Holocaust Remembrance Day, January 27, 2023, during the conference “Racial Hatred and Religious Terrorism”, organized by UPLI-Unione Polizia Locale Italiana and our journal, held at the Roma Tre University. The publication of these in-depth studies was chosen to begin on the 80th anniversary of the tragic deportation of the Roman Jews on October 16, 1943.

Keywords: #antisemitism #antijudaism #religioushate #racism #shoah #jacoporeale #ethicasocietasupli #ethicasocietasrivista #ethicasocietas #ethicasocietasrivista #rivistascientifica #scienzeumane #scienzesociali

italian version

Jacopo Reale, graduated with honors in the History of Christian Civilization (Historical Sciences, LM-84) from the European University of Rome, is a Ph.D. candidate in Modern History and a research fellow at the University of Rome Tor Vergata. He is also a fellow in Judeo-Christian studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University, where he earned both first and second-level master’s degrees in “Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations”, Reale is proficient in Greek, Latin, English and Modern Hebrew.

FAKE NEWS STORICHE: SIMONINO DA TRENTO

The Origins of the Anti-Jewish Myth in the Greek World

Antiokhos IV (Antioco Epifane), Altes Museum di Berlino

One of the earliest forms of anti-Jewish propaganda can be traced back to the events involving Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215-164 BCE). He was the ruler of the Seleucid Empire, a vast dominion roughly corresponding to the areas of present-day Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This empire was a direct result of the fragmentation of Alexander the Great’s empire into various kingdoms, which historiography has defined as “Hellenistic” kingdoms¹. The aversion of Antiochus IV towards the Jews has a complex origin. The Seleucid kingdom was extensive in terms of territory and highly heterogeneous from a cultural standpoint. The eastern borders were often destabilized by uprisings from local populations, which required considerable effort from the rulers to ensure the kingdom’s unity. This effort historically manifested in an intense colonial activity where Greek cities played a crucial role. This activity involved not only controlling trade routes and strategic positions but also, and above all, spreading the Hellenistic way of life².

The Jewish reaction to the influence of Greek culture, induced by the Hellenistic kingdoms, particularly the Seleucid one, ranged from syncretism and assimilation to rejection and opposition. Initially, Judaism opened up to Hellenistic culture, actively participating in it, especially in material, linguistic, and cultural terms. Only one aspect of Greek culture was unacceptable to the more rigorous Jews: the worship of gods and the observance of Greek religious practices³. Otherwise, it has become clear to scholars that all Jews in antiquity were Hellenized, even those speaking Aramaic who lived in the Land of Israel, as they all shared the material culture of the surrounding world and were exposed to the dominance of the Greek language and the intellectual tools of Hellenism⁴.

For most Jews, the ideal solution between preservation and innovation consisted of a synthesis between Jewish content and Hellenistic forms. This did not imply importing materials and ideas external to Judaism but, more simply, a give-and-take exchange⁵. As participants in Hellenistic culture, Jews gave and received in return. The new ethos of Judaism translated especially into the propagation of Greek literary genres, such as commentary, which spread even in conservative environments like Qumran and rabbinic circles. All these works were rigorously faithful to the Jewish tradition, but each of them was, at the same time, an expression of Greek literary taste⁶.

The Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean Revolt.

In this context, the foreign policy of Antiochus IV, who succeeded his brother Seleucus IV in 175 BCE, was pivotal. Antiochus IV had been engaged in the Sixth Syrian War; after invading Egypt in 168 BCE, he was forced to abandon the country immediately by an ambassador of the Roman Republic, Gaius Popillius Laenas⁷. Following this, he turned his attention eastward to address the security of the borders and the internal cohesion of the kingdom. Among the various elements of internal tension was the “Jewish problem”, a conflict that had arisen within Judaism itself starting in 175 BCE, between conservatives led by the high priest Onias and radical Hellenizing Jews supported by Antiochus IV.

The issue was not Hellenism as a culture, but the differing ways individual Jews chose to react to its influence: some, driven by the desire to fully participate in the pleasures of Hellenistic civilization, found the laws preventing social interactions between Jews and Gentiles too burdensome; others had fully embraced the truths of Greek philosophy. Among these were those who attempted to eliminate the distinguishing characteristics of Judaism to make it indistinguishable from other forms of Hellenistic-Semitic polytheism⁸. This clearly aligned with Antiochus IV’s policy, who in 167 BCE issued a royal decree demanding that Jews abandon the Law and Mosaic worship, sparking a national and religious revolt led by the Maccabees. The events of this revolt are known thanks to the accounts of Josephus and the Books of the Maccabees (written in Greek), the first of which possibly dates back to the time of the events described. As is well known, in 164 BCE, Jerusalem was reconquered by the Maccabees and the Temple was rededicated after Antiochus’ desecration⁹.

In 163 BCE, freedom of worship was once again granted to the Jews, but the following year Demetrius I resumed the conflict. Judah, the leader of the Maccabees, then turned to Rome, obtaining a treaty of alliance and a diplomatic intervention that eventually led to the establishment of an independent Jewish state¹⁰.

Antiochus IV was the great loser of the revolt, after which a profound and bitter enmity developed between Jews and non-Jews in many of the territories affected by the Maccabean intervention. The once-marveled admiration for the God of Israel increasingly gave way to disdain for Jewish religious practices and accusations of hostility towards humankind. These stereotypes, once they became part of the literature, had lasting effects and later served as a continuous motivation for anti-Jewish sentiments of the time¹¹.

Louis Jean François Lagrenée (1725–1805), Popilius *sent as ambassador* to Antiochus Epiphanes to stop the course of his ravages in Egypt (1779).

The anti-Jewish propaganda and the blood libel

The anti-Jewish propaganda that emerged in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt included accusations propagated by figures such as Apion (20 BCE – 45 CE), a Greek sophist and grammarian native to Alexandria, Egypt. Although his works have not survived, their contents are known through the rebuttal by Josephus in Contra Apionem. This work stands as the only surviving ancient Jewish text explicitly presented as an apology for Judaism and a significant source documenting ancient anti-Judaism¹².

Apion’s writings are crucial for understanding the origins and intellectual categories of anti-Jewish narratives. It was during this historical period that enduring stereotypes emerged, which would significantly influence Christian culture as well. One prominent accusation was the blood libel, or ritual murder accusation. Apion accused Jews of engaging in the sacrifice of young Greeks and conspiring against the established order.

These accusations were not only false but were part of a broader effort to demonize and marginalize Jewish communities. The blood libel persisted through the centuries and had profound consequences for Jewish communities, leading to persecution and violence based on unfounded allegations.

Josephus’s refutation in Contra Apionem provides a critical response to these slanderous claims and serves as a valuable historical document in understanding the early dynamics of anti-Jewish sentiment and propaganda.

«[Apione] aggiunge un'altra favola greca, per rimproverarci. In risposta a ciò, basterebbe dire che coloro che osano parlare del culto divino non devono ignorare questa semplice verità, che è un grado di minore impurità passare per i templi, piuttosto che fabbricare malvagie calunnie sui suoi sacerdoti. Ora uomini come lui sono più zelanti nel giustificare un re sacrilego, piuttosto che scrivere ciò che è giusto e ciò che è vero su di noi e sul nostro Tempio; perché quando vogliono gratificare Antioco e nascondere quella perfidia e sacrilegio di cui si è reso colpevole nei confronti della nostra nazione, quando ha bisogno di denaro, si sforzano di disonorarci e dicono bugie anche riguardo al futuro. Apione diventa il profeta di altri uomini in questa occasione e dice che “Antioco [IV] trovò nel Tempio un letto e un uomo sdraiato su di esso, con un tavolino davanti a lui, pieno di leccornie, dai [pesci del] mare, e gli uccelli della terraferma; che quest'uomo rimase sbalordito da queste prelibatezze così messe davanti a lui; che subito adorò il re, al suo ingresso, sperando che gli avrebbe prestato tutta l'assistenza possibile; che cadde in ginocchio, e stese verso di lui la mano destra, e lo pregò di essere rilasciato; e che quando il re lo invitò a sedersi, e gli disse chi era, e perché abitava lì, e qual era il significato di quei vari tipi di cibo che gli fu posto davanti, l'uomo fece un lamento lamentoso, e con sospiri e lacrime negli occhi, gli fece questo resoconto dell'angoscia in cui si trovava; e disse che era un greco e che mentre attraversava questa provincia, per guadagnarsi da vivere, fu catturato da stranieri, all'improvviso, e portato in questo Tempio, e chiuso lassù, non fu visto da nessuno, ma fu ingrassato da queste curiose provviste così messe davanti a lui; e che se dapprima tali vantaggi inaspettati gli parvero motivo di grande gioia; dopo un po' gli portarono un sospetto, e alla fine stupore, su quale dovesse essere il loro significato; che alla fine chiese ai servi che andarono da lui e fu da loro informato che era per l'adempimento di una legge degli ebrei, che non dovevano dirgli, che era così nutrito; e che facevano lo stesso ogni anno a una certa ora: che erano soliti catturare uno straniero greco, e ingrassarlo così ogni anno, e poi portarlo in un certo bosco, e ucciderlo, e sacrificare con le loro solite solennità, e assaggiare le sue viscere, e giurare su questo sacrificio, che mai sarebbero stati in amicizia con i greci; e che poi hanno gettato le restanti parti del miserabile in una certa fossa. Il rispetto che portava agli déi greci avrebbe deluso le insidie che gli ebrei avevano teso al suo sangue e lo avrebbe liberato dalle miserie di cui era circondato”
He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us. In reply to which, it would be enough to say, that they who presume to speak about Divine worship ought not to be ignorant of this plain truth, that it is a degree of less impurity to pass through temples, than to forge wicked calumnies of its priests. Now such men as he are more zealous to justify a sacrilegious king, than to write what is just and what is true about us, and about our temple; for when they are desirous of gratifying Antiochus, and of concealing that perfidiousness and sacrilege which he was guilty of, with regard to our nation, when he wanted money, they endeavor to disgrace us, and tell lies even relating to futurities. Apion becomes other men's prophet upon this occasion, and says that “Antiochus found in our temple a bed, and a man lying upon it, with a small table before him, full of dainties, from the [fishes of the] sea, and the fowls of the dry land; that this man was amazed at these dainties thus set before him; that he immediately adored the king, upon his coming in, as hoping that he would afford him all possible assistance; that he fell down upon his knees, and stretched out to him his right hand, and begged to be released; and that when the king bid him sit down, and tell him who he was, and why he dwelt there, and what was the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set before him the man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs, and tears in his eyes, gave him this account of the distress he was in; and said that he was a Greek and that as he went over this province, in order to get his living, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought to this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was fattened by these curious provisions thus set before him; and that truly at the first such unexpected advantages seemed to him matter of great joy; that after a while, they brought a suspicion him, and at length astonishment, what their meaning should be; that at least he inquired of the servants that came to him and was by them informed that it was in order to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell him, that he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every year: that they used to catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up every year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails, and take an oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be at enmity with the Greeks; and that then they threw the remaining parts of the miserable wretch into a certain pit.” Apion adds further, that “the man said there were but a few days to come ere he was to be slain, and implored of Antiochus that, out of the reverence he bore to the Grecian gods, he would disappoint the snares the Jews laid for his blood and would deliver him from the miseries with which he was encompassed.».

Josephus contrasts Apion’s accusations by defending Jewish religion and practices from unfounded attacks and distortions presented by his adversary. Josephus emphasizes the falsehood of Apion’s claims and provides arguments based on Jewish history and traditions to demonstrate their legitimacy and integrity.

«[…] But [as for Apion], he hath done whatever his extravagant love of lying hath dictated to him, as it is most easy to discover by a consideration of his writings; for the difference of our laws is known not to regard the Grecians only, but they are principally opposite to the Egyptians, and to some other nations also for while it so falls out that men of all countries come sometimes and sojourn among us, how comes it about that we take an oath, and conspire only against the Grecians, and that by the effusion of their blood also? Or how is it possible that all the Jews should get together to these sacrifices, and the entrails of one man should be sufficient for so many thousands to taste of them, as Apion pretends? Or why did not the king carry this man, whosoever he was, and whatsoever was his name, (which is not set down in Apion's book,) with great pomp back into his own country? when he might thereby have been esteemed a religious person himself, and a mighty lover of the Greeks, and might thereby have procured himself great assistance from all men against that hatred the Jews bore to him. But I leave this matter; for the proper way of confuting fools is not to use bare words, but to appeal to the things themselves that make against them. Now, then, all such as ever saw the construction of our temple, of what nature it was, know well enough how the purity of it was never to be profaned; for it had four several courts encompassed with cloisters round about, every one of which had by our law a peculiar degree of separation from the rest. Into the first court everybody was allowed to go, even foreigners, and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited to pass through it; all the Jews went into the second court, as well as their wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third court went in the Jewish men, when they were clean and purified; into the fourth went the priests, having on their sacerdotal garments; but for the most sacred place, none went in but the high priests, clothed in their peculiar garments. Now there is so great caution used about these offices of religion, that the priests are appointed to go into the temple but at certain hours; for in the morning, at the opening of the inner temple, those that are to officiate receive the sacrifices, as they do again at noon, till the doors are shut. Lastly, it is not so much as lawful to carry any vessel into the holy house; nor is there anything therein, but the altar [of incense], the table [of shew-bread], the censer, and the candlestick, which are all written in the law; for there is nothing further there, nor are there any mysteries performed that may not be spoken of; nor is there any feasting within the place. For what I have now said is publicly known, and supported by the testimony of the whole people, and their operations are very manifest; for although there be four courses of the priests, and every one of them have above five thousand men in them, yet do they officiate on certain days only; and when those days are over, other priests succeed in the performance of their sacrifices, and assemble together at mid-day, and receive the keys of the temple, and the vessels by tale, without any thing relating to food or drink being carried into the temple; nay, we are not allowed to offer such things at the altar, excepting what is prepared for the sacrifices. What then can we say of Apion, but that he examined nothing that concerned these things, while still he uttered incredible words about them? but it is a great shame for a grammarian not to be able to write true history. Now if he knew the purity of our temple, he hath entirely omitted to take notice of it; but he forges a story about the seizing of a Grecian, about ineffable food, and the most delicious preparation of dainties; and pretends that strangers could go into a place whereinto the noblest men among the Jews are not allowed to enter, unless they be priests. This, therefore, is the utmost degree of impiety, and a voluntary lie, in order to the delusion of those who will not examine into the truth of matters; whereas such unspeakable mischiefs as are above related have been occasioned by such calumnies that are raised upon us»¹³.

The stereotype of ritual murder

The stereotype of ritual murder, though seemingly early, already depicts the classic modus operandi of propaganda: presenting a distortion of information through deliberate acts aimed at generating a consciously false accusation to undermine someone’s reputation. It’s useful to analyze the fundamental elements of Apion’s falsehood because they form the blueprint of the enduring and folkloric myth that has harmed Jews over the centuries. This formula consists of several elements: the abduction of a youth, ritual murder, obscenity (cannibalism), an oath of perpetual hostility sealed with the victim’s blood, and finally, intrigue or conspiracy against Greeks and non-Jewish institutions. These enduring “mental tools” have perpetuated anti-Jewish sentiment and later antisemitism¹⁴.

Many Latin intellectuals and writers also contributed to spreading inaccuracies and falsehoods about Judaism and Jews. For example, Seneca, Horace, and Martial opposed the Sabbath rest, labeling it as superstition¹⁵. Juvenal mocked the Jews for worshipping clouds and the deity of the sky¹⁶. Horace, Catullus, Ovid, Persius, Pliny the Elder, and Martial ridiculed Jewish rituals, lamenting the widespread acceptance of some Jewish practices in Rome¹⁷. This denigratory sentiment was based on common stereotypes, some targeting circumcision as an aesthetic defect or the abstention from pork¹⁸. Even the ritual slaughter of meat was considered akin to superstition¹⁹.

Among the sarcastic comments about Jews being a barbaric mass of beggars, poor charlatans, and shopkeepers²⁰, Tacitus provides the most intriguing account of Jewish culture. In dedicating a chapter to the origins of the Jews, Tacitus shows receptivity to Apion’s lies; he claims Jews are extremely lustful, worship an image of an ass in the Temple²¹, and use unleavened bread in remembrance of stolen grain from Egypt²². In recounting the events of the Jewish revolt under Antiochus IV, Tacitus attributes to the Seleucid ruler the intention to “improve” the “wretched race” of Jews by abolishing their fanaticism and imparting Greek customs. Tacitus’ conclusion is striking and merits careful reflection, especially given his influence on the formation of pan-Germanist thought²³, as he asserts that everything sacred to Romans was profane to Jews, and vice versa²⁴.

The ritual murder of Simonino da Trento in a woodcut from the Germanic area

Notes:

Both Alexander and his successor rulers created new elites, united not only by obedience to the sovereign but also by their common adherence to the Greek language and culture. The rulers encouraged indigenous elites to aspire to political power by adopting the dominant culture.
On this subject, see C. BEARZOT, I greci e gli altri. Convivenza e integrazione, Roma 2012, particularly pp. 139-152.
2Mac 2,21; 4,13.
CALABI,Storia del pensiero giudaico ellenistico, Brescia 2010; SHAYE J.D. COHEN,Dai Maccabei alla Mishnah, Torino 2020, pp. 24-25; V. COLORNI, L’uso del greco nella liturgia del giudaismo ellenistico e la novella 146 di Giustiniano, in «Annali di Storia del Diritto», (8), Milano 1964; W. D. DAVIES, L. FINKELSTEIN, The Cambridge History of Judaism, I: Introduction; The Persian Period; II: The Hellenistic Age, Cambridge 1984-89; J. EFRON, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, Leiden 1987; M. GOODMAN, Judaism in the Roman World, in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (LXVI), Leiden 2006; M. HENGEL, L’«ellenizzazione» della Giudea nel I secolo d.C., C. MARKSCHIES, G. FIRPO (a cura di), Brescia 1993.
The earliest literary work produced by the Jews of the Diaspora was a translation of the Torah into Greek, known as the Septuagint (cf. Letter of Aristeas). In the 2nd century BCE, the Jews of Egypt wrote critical essays, philosophical treatises, and poetic compositions based on this translation. In the land of Israel, Greek competed with Aramaic, the language of the people. However, many Jews spoke and wrote in Greek, including the Maccabees, who commissioned the translation of the first book of their saga, and the translation of the Book of Esther by a Jew from Jerusalem. Later authors, such as Philo and Josephus, wrote original compositions in Greek. Even Bar Kokhba, leader of the third Jewish revolt, wrote some of his letters in the “language of Japheth.” Furthermore, the vast majority of ancient Jewish funerary inscriptions discovered between Egypt and Rome were written in Greek. See J. B. Frey, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions. Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century BC to the Seventh Century AD, New York 1975.
SHAYE J.D. COHEN, Dai Maccabei alla Mishnah, pp. 52-65.
POLIBIO, Storie, XXIX, 27.
In the 1st century CE, the controversy surrounding Jewish religious practice was still prominent, as evidenced by the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Philo strongly criticized the “extreme allegorists” who believed that the laws of the Torah could be observed exclusively through allegory. According to Philo, these Jews thought they could remain faithful to the Torah while not observing its laws in the generally recognized manner. Philo argued, their actions aimed to eliminate the distinctive characteristics of Judaism. This viewpoint is articulated in Philo’s work De migratione Abrahami (On the Migration of Abraham), specifically in sections 89-90. Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, sought to reconcile Jewish tradition with Greek philosophy, but he vehemently opposed interpretations that undermined the literal observance of Jewish law and tradition. His criticism reflects ongoing debates within Judaism during that period, particularly regarding how Jews should interpret and practice their religious teachings.
M. GOODMAN, Storia dell’ebraismo, Torino 2019, p. 18, 28, 50, 64, 76.
Ivi, pp. 103-107.
J. MAIER, Storia del giudaismo nell’antichità, Brescia 1992, pp. 57-65.
Even in the Jewish Antiquities, an apologetic tendency can be identified. According to Luciano Canfora, one of Josephus’s aims is to accurately convey the account of events concerning the decisive support provided by the Jews for Julius Caesar in Alexandria, Egypt (46 BCE), a support obscured by other sources (L. CANFORA, “Cesare salvato dagli ebrei,” in Giulio Cesare. Il dittatore democratico, Rome-Bari 1999, pp. 233-239, particularly pp. 238-242). The wealth of documents compiled by Josephus objectively attests to Caesar’s careful management of the significant Eastern (Jewish) clientela. Within this documentation, the theme of gratitude for what Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, and his supporters did for Caesar is predominant. Josephus’ account serves a specific polemical purpose: to refute the extensive historiographical tradition that obscured the Jewish contribution. This tradition, according to Canfora, originates from Appian, War of Alexandria 26, exteds through Titus Livius, Periochae 112, Cassius Dio XLII, 40-41, and Plutarch, Caesar 58 (Ivi, p. 239).
JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS, Contra Apionem, II, 8.
On the concept of “long duration” see F. Braudel, Storia e scienze sociali. La lunga durata, in Scritti sulla storia, Milano 1973, pp. 57-92. Regarding the notion of “outillage mental” refer to Historiographies. I. Concepts et débats, vol. 1, ed. C. Delacroix, Paris 2010, p. 221; A. Burgière, L’école des Annales: une histoire intellectuelle, Paris 2006, pp. 44, 80.
ORAZIO, Sermones, 1, 9, 69; MARZIALE, Ep., 4, 4; De Superst., cit. in AGOSTINO, De civitate Dei, 5, 11; PLUTARCO, Quaestiones conviviales, 4, 6, 2.
GIOVENALE, Satirae, 5, 14, 96-105; 3, 14-6; 542-7.
MARZIALE, Epigrammaton liber, 12, 57, 13-4; 12, 57, 11-4: GIOVENALE, Sat., 6, 542-7; 14, 96-106; PLINIO, Naturalis historia, XIII, 4.9; Cf. anche L. CRACCO RUGGINI, Pagani ebrei e cristiani: odio sociologico e odio teologico nel mondo antico, in Gli Ebrei nell’Alto Medioevo. Atti della XXVI Settimana di studio del CISAM, Spoleto 30 marzo – 5 aprile 1978, 2 voll., Spoleto 1980; P. SCHAFER, Giudeofobia – L’antisemitismo nel mondo antico, Roma 1999: D. GILULA, La satira degli ebrei nella letteratura latina, in A. LEWIN (a cura di), Gli ebrei nell’Impero Romano, Firenze 2001, pp. 195-215.
ORAZIO, Sermones, 1, 9, 70; MARZIALE, Ep., 7, 30; GIOVENALE, Sat., 14, 86-106; Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrianus, 14, 1-2.
GIOVENALE, Sat., 14, 96-106.
GIOVENALE, Sat., 3, 14-6; 6, 542-547; 6, 14, 96-106; MARZIALE, Ep., 12, 57, 13-14; 12, 57, 11-4.
Contra Apionem, II, 7; TACITO, Historiae, V, 5.
Ivi, V, 8.
The influence of Tacitus on German nationalist thought can be traced through various works across centuries: PICCOLOMINI, De ritu, situ, moribus et condicione Theutoniae descriptio, 1496; MONTESQUIEU, Lo spirito delle leggi, 1748; HERDER, Una filosofia per l’educazione dell’umanità, 1773; KLOPSTOCK, Hermanns Schlacht, 1769; ID, Hermann und die Fürsten, 1784; FICHTE, Discorsi alla nazione germanica, 1807-1808; KLEIST, La battaglia di Arminio, 1808-1809; DE BONSTETTEN, La Scandinavie et les Alpes, 1826; GOBINEAU, Saggio sulla disuguaglianza delle razze umane, 1853-1854; ENGELS, Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen, 1881 (in it. Storia e lingua dei Germani); ID, L’origine della famiglia, della proprietà privata e dello Stato, 1884; MOMMSEN, Rede zur Feier des Geburstages Friedrichs des Groβen, 1886; CHAMBERLAIN, Fondamenti del XIX secolo, 1899; CROCE, Il dissidio spirituale della Germania con l’Europa, 1943; MOMIGLIANO, Some observations on causes of war in ancient historiography, 1954; SYME, Tacitus, 1958; MOSSE, Le origini culturali del terzo Reich, 1968; BURKE, Tacitism, 1969. Rilevanti tracce lasciate dalla Germania di Tacito nella letteratura tedesca sono identificate in K. VON SEE, Deutsche Germanenideologie von Humanismus bis zum Gegenwart, 1970; CANFORA, La Germania di Tacito da Engels al nazismo, 1979; DEMANDT, Theodor Mommsen, i Cesari e la decadenza di Roma. La scoperta della “Römische Kaisergeschichte”, 1995; MELLOR, Tacitus, 1995; KREBS, Un libro molto pericoloso: la Germania di Tacito dall’Impero Romano al Terzo Reich, 2012.
TACITO, Historiae, V, 8.