"Arch"- Enemy: The Polemic against Titus in Benjamin of Tudela’s Book of Travels
A brief passage in Benjamin of Tudela’s Book of Travels places the Emperor Titus’s palace outside of Rome, explaining that the Senate (and, in some manuscripts, also the consul) did not allow him to re-enter the city in punishment for having taken too long to conquer Jerusalem. Though clearly contra...
| Published in: | Hebrew Union College annual |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2022
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 2022, Volume: 93, Pages: 31-116 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Titus Roman Empire, Emperor 39-81
/ Jerusalem
/ Arch (Architecture)
/ Tradition
/ Jewish War (66-70)
|
| IxTheo Classification: | BH Judaism |
| Further subjects: | B
Benjamin von Tudela
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | A brief passage in Benjamin of Tudela’s Book of Travels places the Emperor Titus’s palace outside of Rome, explaining that the Senate (and, in some manuscripts, also the consul) did not allow him to re-enter the city in punishment for having taken too long to conquer Jerusalem. Though clearly contravening the known historical record, according to which Titus celebrated a triumph upon his return to the Eternal City, this strange claim has been almost entirely overlooked in the substantial literature on this text. "‘Arch’-Enemy" addresses this lacuna on multiple fronts. After first ascribing this passage’s neglect to its erroneous attribution to Sefer Yosippon, this article reveals the tradition of Titus’s punishment as a uniquely Roman-Jewish polemic against the Arch of Titus. It then proceeds to argue that this monument was intentionally left out of Benjamin’s detailed description of Rome as offensive to Jewish sensibilities, hence the titular "‘arch’-enemy." In addition, this study explains the emergence of this Titus counter-tradition by recourse to the political turmoil endemic to twelfth-century Rome, in which a resurgent Senate frequently compelled popes to depart from, and/or prohibited their return to, the Eternal City. Finally, ten appendices explore issues directly related to the above matters, including textual variants; other presences and absences in Benjamin’s account of Rome; justifications for arguments from silence (as here in the case of the arch); and the origins and meaning of relevant names, terms, phenomena, and practices. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|