Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading Between the Lines

FLAVIAN R O M E FLAVIAN ROME Culture, Image, Text EDITED BY A . J . BOYLE AND W.J. D O M I N I K BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003 This book is printed on acid­free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data is also available Die Deutsche Bibliothek ­ CIP­Einheitsaufhahme Flavian Rome : Culture, image, text / ed. by A J . Boyle and J.W. Dominik. Leiden ; Boston : Brill ISBN 9 0 ­ 0 4 ­ 1 1 1 8 8 ­ 3 ISBN 90 0 4 1 1 1 8 8 3 © Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS CONTENTS Notes on Contributors Preface List of Illustrations Texts and Abbreviations 1. Introduction: Reading Flavian Rome A. J. Boyle 2. The New Aristocracy of Power Ronald Mellor 3. Conquerors and Conquered on Flavian Coins Jane M. Cody 4. Poetry and Politics at the Games of Domitian Alex Hardie 5. Slave­Boys for Sexual and Religious Service: Images of Pleasure and Devotion John Pollini 6. Plurima et Amplissima Opera: Parsing Flavian Rome James E. Packer 7. Architecture and Surveillance in Flavian Rome David Fredrick 8. Par Operi Sedes: Mrs Arthur Strong and Flavian Style, the Arch of Titus and the Cancelleria Reliefs John Henderson 9. Containment and Corruption: The Discourse of Flavian Empire Rhiannon Evans 10. Rhetoric of Writing and Reading in the Preface to Pliny's Naturalis Historia Patrick Sinclair 11. Pliny's Naturalis Historia: The Prodigal Text Trevor Murphy 12. A Religion for the Empire Clifford Ando vii ix xi xv 1 69 103 125 149 167 199 229 255 277 301 323 vi CONTENTS 13. Expelling the Mind: Politics and Philosophy in Flavian Rome John L. Penwill 14. Plutarch and the Return of the Archaic Phiroze Vasunia 15. Flavian Drama: Looking Back with Octavia Joseph A. Smith 16. The Politics of Epic Performance in Statius Donka D. Markus 17. Hannibal at the Gates: Programmatising Rome and Romanitas in Silius Italicus' Punica 1 and 2 William J. Dominik 18. The Emperor's Saturnalia: Statius, Silvae 1.6 Carole E. Newlands 19. After the Silence: Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal Marcus Wilson 20. The Triumph of Flavius Josephus Mary Beard 21. Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading On and Between the Lines Steve Mason 22. Accipe Diuitias et Vatum Maximus Esto: Money, Poetry, Mendicancy and Patronage in Martial Barbara K. Gold 23. Reading the Imperial Revolution: Martial, Epigrams 10 Hannah Fearnley 24. The Flavian Amphitheatre: All the World as Stage Erik Gunderson 25. Spectacle and Elite in the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus Andrew Jfissos Bibliography Index Locorum General Index 345 369 391 431 469 499 523 543 559 591 613 637 659 685 719 725 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Southern California, USA CLIFFORD ANDO Reader in Classics and Fellow of Newnham College, University of Cambridge, U K M A R Y BEARD A. J . BOYLE USA Professor of Classics, University of Southern California, M. CODY Associate Professor Emerita of Classics, University of Southern California, USA JANE WILLIAM J . DOMINIK Professor of Classics, University of Otago, New Zealand Lecturer in Classics, University of Tasmania, RHIANNON EVANS Australia Doctoral Holder in Classics, University of South­ ern California, USA HANNAH FEARNLEY Associate Professor of Classics, University of Arkan­ DAVID FREDRICK sas, USA Associate Professor of Classics, Ohio State Uni­ ERIK GUNDERSON versity, U S A BARBARA K. GOLD ALEX HARDIE Professor of Classics, Hamilton College, USA Bursar, Oriel College, University of Oxford, U K Reader in Classics and Fellow of King's College, University of Cambridge, U K JOHN HENDERSON Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Michigan, DONKA MARKUS USA STEVE MASON Professor of Humanities, York University, Canada RONALD MELLOR Angeles, U S A Professor of History, University of California, Los Vlll NOTES O N CONTRIBUTORS Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Cali­ fornia, Berkeley, USA TREVOR MURPHY E. NEWLANDS Madison, USA CAROLE Professor of Classics, University of Wisconsin, E. PACKER Professor Emeritus of Classics, University, USA JAMES Northwestern L. PENWILL Senior Lecturer in Classics, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia JOHN Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology, University of Southern California, USA JOHN POLLINI Associate Professor of Classics, University of Cali­ fornia, Irvine, USA PATRICK SINCLAIR A. SMITH Assistant Professor of Classics, San Diego State University, USA JOSEPH VASUNIA Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Southern California, USA PHIROZE MARCUS WILSON Senior Lecturer in Classics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Zissos Irvine, USA ANDREW Assistant Professor of Classics, University of California, PREFACE One of the marks of a vital academic discipline is its capacity to re­ evaluate its own internal narratives. For much of the twentieth cen­ tury the political, social and architectural history of ancient Rome during the Flavian principate (69­96 CE) attracted scholars and schol­ arship of the first rank, while the literature of the period was the victim of a story designed to discourage its study. Castigated as un­ original, arid, trivial and bookish, the poetry of the period especially was marginalised as second­rate and, more often than not, left unex­ amined. The last two decades or so, however, have seen something of a revolution in the evaluation of both the poetry and prose writ­ ings of the Flavian period, and in the appreciation of the political and cultural context of which those writings were a constitutive and exegetic part. It seemed the right time to commission a set of stud­ ies of the larger political and cultural context of Flavian Rome, its literary and artistic productions, and the dynamic interplay between them. Our first aims were fairly limited: to bring together perhaps a dozen chapters which would explore the cultural dynamics of the period by juxtaposing literary with art­historical and political or cul­ tural research. As our commissioning and passion grew, we discov­ ered so much exciting work taking place that we doubled the number of chapters (and could have tripled it) and embraced several that dissolve the very 'literary', 'political' and 'cultural' distinctions which have themselves done much to restrict our knowledge. We decided to commission not only established international figures, who form the majority of the contributors, but also young, emerging scholars at the cutting edge of the discipline. It needs to be emphasised that all the chapters in this volume are new studies. They range from political, military and social analysis, through intellectual and art his­ tory, numismatics and literary criticism, to discourse inquiry and cul­ tural critique. The result is a critical survey of the period, which underscores and re­evaluates its foundational importance. All Greek and Latin have been translated to make the volume accessible to as wide a readership as possible. We hope that the collection will be valuable both to the undergraduate student of the period and to the specialist scholar. X PREFACE The usual acknowledgement of debts is an unusual pleasure. To all our contributors a sincere thanks for their patience and their thor­ oughness in obtaining the required permissions. And to Joseph Smith and Olivia Banks we are especially indebted for their hard labour and judicious intelligence in reading what must have seemed like an acre of proofs and for joindy compiling the indices; special thanks are also due to Wendy Wira for checking the proofs. The editors express their appreciation to Brill, particularly Julian Deahl, Senior Editor, for agreeing to publish the book in the first instance; to Michiel Klein Swormink, for permitting us to make necessary changes to the original proposal; and to Ms Gera van Bedaf, Desk Editor, for taking the book through the editing and production process. The University of Natal, the National Research Foundation of South Africa, Clare Hall Cambridge, the University of Otago, and the University of Southern California provided grants, fellowships and sabbatical leaves that enabled the editors to complete much of the work for this volume. Los Angeles, USA Dunedin, New Zealand August 2002 A. J . Boyle W. J . Dominik LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1-6 can be found on page 108 in chapter 3 by Jane M. Cody: Fig. 1. Denarius of Vespasian: reverse type with female Jewish cap­ tive seated mourning below a trophy. Courtesy of the Amer­ ican Numismatic Society (1957.172.1563). Fig. 2. Denarius of Vespasian: reverse type of male and female Jewish captives seated mourning below a trophy. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society (1001.1.12936). Fig. 3. Sestertius of Vespasian: reverse type of female Jewish cap­ tive seated mourning below a palm tree. To the left, an oversize Roman commander in heroic guise. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society (1935.11.372). Fig. 4. Sestertius of Domitian: reverse type of a female German captive seated below a trophy. To the right, a standing German captive, hands tied behind his back. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society (1905.57.328). Fig. 5. Denarius of Domitian: reverse type of mourning German captive/Germania seated on a shield. Courtesy of the Amer­ ican Numismatic Society (1001.1.22957). Fig. 6. Sestertius of Domitian: reverse supplicatio scene; a female German offers a shield to the Roman commander standing above her. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society (1944.100.42573). Figures 7-26 can be found between pages 158 and 159 in chapter 5 by John Pollini: Fig. 7. Portrait of a Male, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 8. Portrait of a Male, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 9. Portrait of a Male, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 10. Portrait of a Male, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 1 1 . Portrait of a Slave­boy in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Cour­ tesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome (neg. 77.352). xii LIST O F ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 12. Portrait of a Slave­boy in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Cour­ tesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome (neg. 77.352). Fig. 13. Relief in the Museo Gregoriano Profano, Vatican. Photo, author. Fig. 14. Relief in the Museo Gregoriano Profano, Vatican. Photo, author. Fig. 15. Relief on funerary altar in the Palazzo Istituto Romano dei Beni Stabili, Rome. Fless (1995) pi. 25.1. Fig. 16. Relief on funerary altar in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome (neg. 37.715). Fig. 17. Portrait Bust A in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 18. Portrait Bust A in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 19. Portrait Bust A in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 20. Portrait Bust B in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 21. Portrait Bust B in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 22. Portrait Bust B in the J . Paul Getty Museum, Malibu. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 23. Scene on the 'Warren Cup' in the British Museum. Courtesy of the Museum. Fig. 24. Mosaic, Archaeological Museum, Capua. Napoli (1960) 74 pi. 6 1 . Fig. 25. 'Spolia' Panel, Arch of Titus, Rome. Alinari 5840. Fig. 26. Detail of a ministrant from the 'Spolia' Panel, Arch of Titus, Rome. Courtesy of Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome (neg. 79.2563). Figures 27-39 can be found on the pages 180-192 in chapter 6 by James E. Packer. Fig. 27. Bay of the Colosseum. After Wilson Jones (1993) fig. 33. Fig. 28. Section of the Colosseum. After Wilson Jones (1993) fig. 32. Fig. 29. Reconstructed view of the Temple of Peace. Colini (1937) pi. 4. Fig. 30. Plan of the Temple of Peace on the Forma Urbis. Colini (1937) pi. 3. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Xlll Fig. 3 1 . Palladio's plan of the Baths of Titus. After Yegul (1992) fig. 152. Fig. 32. Reconstructed elevation of the Temple of Vespasian. De Angeli (1992) fig. 144. Fig. 33. Reconstructed Trajanic relief showing the facade of Domi­ tian's Temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. Wace (1907) pi. 29. Fig. 34. Plan of the Forum Transitorium. After Bauer (1976­77) pi. D. Fig. 35. Plan of the Domus Flavia. After MacDonald (1982) pi. 40. Fig. 36. Model of the Imperial Palaces (scale 1:250) looking northwest toward the Colosseum (upper middle): Italo Gismondi. The large gabled building with the prominent 'thermal window' (upper left) is the Aula Regia; the smaller one with the rear apse, the Iovis Cenatio. The two­storey colonnade above the Circus Maximus fronts the Domus Augustana. Courtesy of Museo della Civilta Romana, Rome. Photograph by H. N. Serra. Fig. 37. Restored view of the 'Iovis Cenatio'. Gibson et al. (1994) 91 fig. 29. Fig. 38. Plan of the upper level of the Domus Augustana. Wataghan Cantino (1966) pi. 4. Fig. 39. Plan of the lower level of the Domus Augustana. Wataghan Cantino (1966) pi. 5. Figures 40-42 can be found on the pages 216, 224, and 225 in chapter 7 by David Fredrick: Fig. 40. Palace of Domitian, Iovis Cenatio. By kind permission of Sheila Gibson. Fig. 4 1 . Forum Transitorium. D'Ambra (1993) pi. 18. Fig. 42. Forum Transitorium: Attic relief and frieze. D'Ambra (1993) pi. 82. Figures 43-52 can be found between pages 238 and 239 in chapter 8 by John Henderson: Fig. 43. Arch of Titus: the 'Triumphator' Relief, reversed right/left. Alinari 5839. Fig. 44. Arch of Titus. Bellori (1690), Tafeln 3f., via Pfanner (1983): Tafel 4.3. Fig. 45. Arch of Titus. Bellori (1690), Tafeln 3f, via Pfanner (1983): Tafel 4.4. xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 4 6 . Cancelleria Relief 'A'. Magi (1945): Tavola 1 (sopra). Fig. 4 7 . Cancelleria Relief ' B \ Magi (1945): Tavola 1 (sotto). 5 Fig. 4 8 . Cancelleria Relief 'A . Magi (1945): Tavola Agg. D (sopra). Fig. 4 9 . Cancelleria Relief ' B \ Magi (1945): Tavola Agg. D (sotto), but reversed right/left. Fig. 5 0 . Cancelleria Relief 'A' oblique view. Magi (1945) 1 5 7 fig. 74. Fig. 5 1 . Cancelleria Relief 'B' panel 1: the moment of discovery. Magi (1945) 4 4 fig. 4 3 . Fig. 5 2 . Cancelleria Relief 'B': detail of Victory's flying left foot. Magi (1945) 3 2 fig. 3 6 . TEXTS AND ABBREVIATIONS Ancient Works and Authors The titles of ancient works are generally cited in Latin, occasionally in English or Greek (with an English translation). Abbreviations of ancient authors and works are mainly those listed in the fol­ lowing works: Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds) (1996) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H. (eds) (1970) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd edn. Oxford. Souter, A., Wyilie, J . M., Glare, P. G. W . et al (eds) (1968­82) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. and Jones, H. S. (eds) (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford. Modern Works References to modern works in the chapters of this volume appear by scholarly surname, year and page references. References to scholars by name and page ref­ erences only are to their chapters in this volume. The abbreviations of the following modern works should be noted: BMC CAH CHCL CIL Mattingly, H. (ed.) (1923) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 1: Augustus to Vitellius. London. (ed.) (1930) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 2: Vespasian to Domitian. London. (ed.) (1936) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 3: Nerva to Hadrian. London. Walbank, F. W., Astin, A. E., Frederiksen, M. W. and Ogilvie, R. M. (eds) (1989) The Cambridge Ancient History 7.2: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C. 2nd edn. Cambridge. Cook, S. A., Adcock, F. E. and Charlesworth, M. P. (eds) (1954) The Cambridge Ancient History 8: Rome and the Mediterranean 218-133 B.C. Cam­ bridge. Astin, A. E., Walbank, F. W., Frederiksen and M. W . , Ogilvie, R. M. (eds) 1989) The Cambridge Ancient History 8: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. 2nd edn. Cambridge. Bowman, A. K., Garnsey, P. and Rathbone, D. (eds) (2000) The Cambridge Ancient History 1 1 : The High Empire A.D. 70-192. 2nd edn. Cambridge. Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W . (eds) (1985) Cambridge History of Classical Literature 1: Greek Literature. Cambridge. Kenney, E . J . and Clausen, W . V. (eds) (1982) Cambridge History of Classical Literature 2: Latin Literature. Cambridge. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (ed.) (1863—) Berlin. xvi TEXTS Dar.-Sag. EAA FGrH FD FIR HRR IG IGUR ILLRP ILS KP LIMC LSJ LTUR 2 OCD OCD' OLD PIR} 2 PIR RE RAC RIB RIC RRC SIG TLL AND ABBREVIATIONS Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E. (eds) ( 1 8 7 7 ­ 1 9 1 9 ) Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines d'apres les textes et les monuments. Paris. Enciclopedia delVarte antica: Classica e orientate 1 ­ 7 . (ed.) (1958­66) Rome. Jacoby, F. (ed.) (1923—) Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Boarguet, E. (ed.) (1929) Fouilles de Delphes 3.1: Inscriptions de Ventree du Sanctuaire au tresor des Atheniens. Paris. Riccobon, S. (ed.) (1941) Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani 1: Leges. 2nd edn. Florence. Peter, H. (ed.) (1914) Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae 1. 2nd edn. Leipzig. (ed.) (1906) Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae 2. Leipzig. Kirchner, J . (ed.) (1931) Inscriptions Graecae 2: Inscriptions Atticae Euclidis Anno Posteriores. Berlin. Dittenberger, W . (ed.) (1903) Inscriptions Graecae 7: Inscriptions Megaridis et Boeotiae. Berlin. Moretti, L. (ed.) (1979) Inscriptions Graecae Urbis Romae 3. Rome. Degrassi, A. (ed.) (1965) Inscriptions Latinae Liberae Rei Republicae 1. 2nd edn. Rome. (ed.) (1963) Inscriptions Latinae Liberae Rei Republicae 2. Rome. Dessau, H. (ed.) ( 1 8 9 2 ­ 1 9 1 6 ) Inscriptions Latinae Selectae. Berlin. Ziegler, K., Sontheimer, W. and Gartner, H. (eds) (1964­75) Der kleine Pauly. Munich. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. (ed.) (1981 —) Zurich. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. and Jones, H. S. (eds) (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford. Steinby, E. M. (ed.) (1993) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1. Rome. (ed.) (1995) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 2. Rome. (ed.) (1996) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 3. Rome. (ed.) (1999) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 4. Rome. Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H. (eds) (1970) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd edn. Oxford. Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds) (1996) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford. Souter, A., Wyllie, J . M., Glare, P. G. W . et al. (eds) (1968­82) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Klebs, E. and Dessau, H. (eds) (1897­8) Prosopographia Imperii Romani. 1st edn. Berlin. Groag, E. and Stein, A. et al. (eds) (1933—) Prosopographia Imperii Romani. 2nd edn. Berlin. Pauly, A. and Wissowa, G. and Kroll, W. (eds) (1893­1980) Realencyclopddie Stuttgart/Munich. der classischen Altertumswissenschqft. Klauser, T. (ed.) (1941 —) Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965) The Roman Inscriptions of Britain 1: Inscriptions on Stone. Oxford. Sutherland, C. H. V. and Carson, R. A. G. (eds) (1984) The Roman Imperial Coinage 1: From 31 BC to AD 69. 2nd edn. London. Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A. (eds) (1926) Roman Imperial Coinage 2: Vespasian to Hadrian. London. Crawford, M. (ed.) (1974) Roman Republican Coinage 1­2. Cambridge. Dittenberger, W . (ed.) (1915­24) Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 3rd edn. Leipzig. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. (ed.) (1900­) Leipzig. TEXTS AND ABBREVIATIONS XVI1 A Note on the Greek and Latin Text The Greek and Latin texts used in each chapter are indicated in the notes or are the standard texts. When italicized as part of the Latin text, consonantal V and 'j' have been printed as 'u' and 'i' throughout, while 'U' and 'J' appears as ' V and T . 2 1 . F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S IN F L A V I A N R O M E : R E A D I N G O N A N D B E T W E E N THE LINES Steve Mason 1 Because Titus Flavius Josephus (37­late 90s CE?) wrote mainly about J u d a e a , he has been studied chiefly from the perspective of J u d a e a n realia. In general, scholars have occupied themselves with the referen­ tial aspect of his corpus, therefore with such techniques for verification as Quellenforschung and the testing of his claims through archaeol­ ogy. 2 Even Peter Wiseman's study of Josephus' R o m a n material (AJ 1 9 . 1 ­ 2 7 3 ) , though Wiseman is otherwise famous for his rhetorical 3 interests, is principally concerned with that material's provenance and accuracy. 4 As a result of this academic tradition, two problem sets normally considered introductory to ancient authors have in the case of Josephus suffered neglect. These are the literary investigation of his legacy— including the shape of each work, the coherence of the corpus and his exploitation of rhetorical devices—and the setting in which he first published his compositions: Flavian R o m e . 5 This chapter strives to unite these neglected lines of inquiry in a preliminary way, by considering the meaning of Josephus' magnum opus for its first recipients. Such an undertaking requires us to read both on and between the lines. Under the principate, almost everyone in elite circles appears 1 The author refers to himself only as 'IcoonTcoq (Josephus'). The nomen 'Flavius' is given by later Christian users of his work (e.g., Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1.5.3). Since Josephus took the imperial nomen, it is highly likely that he completed his citizen's name with the popular praenomen Titus, shared by all three Flavian rulers. For a synopsis of Josephus scholarship, see Bilde (1988) 1 2 3 ­ 7 1 . Bilde was unable to find scholarly accounts of the major works' aims and structures (pp. 71, 102, 118). Today there is a growing body of literary­rhetorical analysis, but almost exclusively for narrative segments, notably the biblical paraphrase (e.g., Attridge [1976]; Feldman [1998]; Begg [2000] and for the shorter works (Cohen [1979] and Mason [2001] on the Vita; Gerber [1997] on the Contra Apionem), still not for the major works or the whole corpus. Cf. Wiseman (1979). Wiseman (1991) vii­xv. For an initial probe, see Goodman (1994a) 3 2 9 ­ 3 8 . 2 3 4 5 560 STEVE MASON to have written and read ironically. Tacitus was a master of irony, obliquely orienting his narratives of earlier periods toward present 6 political concerns. Audiences were long attuned to such subliminal messages. Noticeable respect for Iulius Caesar's assassins, for exam­ ple, was ground for suspicion. 7 The senator Cremutius Cordus was prosecuted in 2 5 CE on the charge that the praise of Brutus and Cassius in his histories, when these men were generally considered 'bandits and parricides' (latrones et parricidas), implied criticism of Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 4 . 3 4 ­ 5 ) . U n d e r Nero, by contrast, Seneca pru­ dendy denied Stoic justification to the assassins, averring that 'just kingship' (rege iusto) was the optimal form of government (Ben. 2.20.2). Tacitus reports other examples of sensitivity to this issue of Caesar's killers (Ann. 3 . 7 6 ; 1 6 . 7 , 22), as does Pliny (Ep. 1.17.3). From at least the autumn of 9 3 CE, Domitian too became adept at reading between the lines. 8 He executed Hermogenes of Tarsus for certain 'allusions' (figurae) in his history (Suet. Dom. 10.1), Rusdcus Arulenus and Herennius Senecio for praising long­dead critics of Nero and Vespasian (Suet. Dom. 1 0 . 3 ; Tac. Agr. 2 . 1 ; Plin. Ep. 7 . 1 9 . 5 ; Cass. Dio 6 7 . 1 3 . 2 ) . Within a y e a r or two of these actions Domitian's wrath reportedly came to encompass 'many' (noXkoi), even high­ ranking family members, w h o had drifted 'into the customs of the J u d a e a n s ' (eq TOC xcov 'Io\)8a{cov rfir\; Cass. Dio 6 7 . 1 4 . 2 ; cf. 6 8 . 1 . 2 ) . Now it was precisely in late 9 3 or early 9 4 CE that the priest Josephus published in R o m e his work on J u d a e a n culture (AJ 20.267). T h e foreign aristocrat included in his histories a pointed indictment of Iulius Caesar as the origin of subsequent tyranny and had one of his characters fault Cassius and Brutus for not going far enough inasmuch as they failed to eradicate monarchy (AJ 1 9 . 1 8 4 ) . Josephus retailed a sarcastic story a b o u t the succession worries faced by 9 Domitian's model (Suet. Dom. 2 0 ) , the childless princeps Tiberius (AJ 1 8 . 2 0 5 ­ 2 3 ) . W e can hardly avoid the question of this work's poten­ tial implications in Domitian's Rome. Thus we face a number of related questions. W h a t is the Antiquitates Judaicae- 6 Cf. Cf. For 121­46; Cf. 7 8 9 Vita about as a whole and in its parts? W h a t sort of people Plass (1988) 3 ­ 6 8 ; Kraus and Woodman (1997) 8 8 ­ 9 7 . Wiseman (1991) 78. nuanced treatments of Domitian's 'terror' ( 8 9 / 9 3 ­ 9 6 CE) see Syme (1983) Jones (1992) 1 8 2 ­ 9 2 ; Southern (1997) 1 1 4 ­ 1 8 . Syme (1958) 422. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME 561 constituted its first audience in R o m e ? W h a t could this work have meant for such an audience? Context: Josephus in Rome In the y e a r of Gaius' accession (37 CE), Yosef ben Mattathyahu was born into a priesdy­aristocratic family in Jerusalem. He received at least the standard education for his class (Vit. 6 ­ 1 2 ) . Before he turned 3 0 , the J u d a e a n revolt against R o m e had broken out. For reasons that are still much debated, 10 he found himself defending the Galilean front against the initial onslaught of legionary and allied forces. His defences did not hold for long, predictably, and he surrendered to Vespasian in J u l y 6 7 CE; he would claim in retrospect a divine mis­ sion to announce the future greatness of the Flavians (BJ 3 . 3 4 0 ­ 4 0 8 ) . After two years of imprisonment and following the eastern legions' acclamation of Vespasian, he was released (BJ 4 . 6 1 6 ­ 2 9 ) . He assisted Titus during the final phase of the Jerusalem campaign (BJ 5 . 3 6 1 ­ 4 2 0 , 5 4 1 ­ 7 ; 6 . 9 6 ­ 1 2 9 ; Ap. 1.49) and then accompanied the victorious gen­ eral to R o m e in early 71 CE (Vit. 422). O n c e in the capital, Josephus was given citizenship, accommoda­ tion in Vespasian's former private house, and a pension of some kind (Vit. 423). There he wrote his three surviving works: the seven­ volume Bellum Judaicum, largely completed by the late 70s CE; the twenty­volume Antiquitates Judaicae with its autobiographical appen­ dix, published in 9 3 ­ 9 4 CE; and the two­volume work traditionally known as Contra Apionem some time after that. W h i l e living in R o m e , he was married for the third or fourth time, to a J u d a e a n w o m a n of reputable Cretan origin w h o gave him two sons in addition to the one w h o had survived from a previous marriage (Vit. 4 2 7 ) . Post­war R o m e , which was also recovering from the civil upheaval of 6 8 ­ 6 9 CE, was presumably not a pleasant environment for most expatriate J u d a e a n s . T h e new princeps had vaulted to power largely on the strength of his victory in J u d a e a . 11 He shared with his son Titus a triumph that saw the parading of Jerusalem's treasures and 10 On the involvement of Josephus' class in the war, see Drexler (1925) 2 7 7 ­ 3 1 2 ; Cohen (1979); Rajak (1983); Goodman (1987); and Price (1992). Drexler and the latter two attempt to eke out of his narrative a historical picture that contradicts his at the major points. For Josephus' view of the Romans' place in history, see Lindner (1972). Cf. Levick (1999) 5 3 ­ 4 . 11 562 STEVE MASON captives through the streets of R o m e (BJ 7 . 1 1 5 ­ 5 7 ) ; J u d a e a n slaves once again became plentiful (BJ 3 . 5 4 0 ­ 1 ; 7 . 1 1 8 ) . Celebratory coins were issued, depicting the subjection of a rebellious people, 12 and eventually the A r c h of Titus went up under Domitian, enshrining the same message. During and after the w a r , anti­Judaean reprisals broke out in various cities (BJ 2 . 4 5 7 ­ 9 3 , 5 5 9 ; 7 . 1 0 8 ­ 1 1 , 3 6 7 ­ 8 ) , pos­ sibly in R o m e too, although we have no direct evidence of that. J u d a e a n s were now taxed, with the money that formerly had gone to the upkeep of the J e r u s a l e m temple, for the Jiscus 7 . 2 1 8 ; Suet. Dom. 12.2). 13 ludaicus (BJ Given the ways in which later R o m a n authors would mention the w a r (Tac. Hist. 5 . 1 ­ 1 3 ; Origen, C. Cels. 5 . 4 1 ; Min. Fel. Oct. 1 0 , 3 3 ; Philostr. VA 5.33), it is easy to believe Josephus when he says that the initial histories were disdainful of the J u d a e a n s and flattering of the Romans (BJ 1 . 1 ­ 3 , 6 ­ 8 ) . A t the same time, a variety of literary evidence indicates a keen interest among some R o m a n s in things J u d a e a n (Suet. Dom. 1 2 . 2 ; Tac. Hist. 5.5; A r r . Epict. Diss. 2.9.20; J u v . Sat. 5 . 1 4 . 9 6 ­ 1 0 6 ) . 1 4 W e do not know much about the R o m a n J u d a e a n community under the Flavians. O u r best evidence for their organisation, social levels and self­understanding comes from funerary inscriptions of the second century CE and later. 15 Already a substantial population by the middle of the second century BCE, they had been expelled o r disciplined at various junctures thereafter—often on the charge of disseminating their national customs. 16 Aside from Josephus' allusions to more or less constant accusations against him by his compatriots (Vit. 4 2 4 ­ 9 ) , 1 7 his personal relationship to the J u d a e a n community is a matter of speculation. 12 18 Meshorer (1982) 1 9 0 ­ 7 , plate 35. Levick (1999) pi. vi (between pp. 106­7). * Analysis is in Smallwood (1976) 3 7 1 ­ 6 . The evidence for Romans' interest in Judaean culture is controversial. For the evidence, see Leon (1960) 4 1 ­ 5 ; Smallwood (1976) 3 7 6 ­ 8 5 ; and Feldman (1993) 1 7 7 ­ 4 4 5 ; for a contrary reading, Goodman (1994b) 6 0 ­ 9 0 ; in support of the older view, Mason (1996) 1 8 8 ­ 9 5 . Cf. Leon (1960); Rutgers (1995). Cf. Leon (1960) 1 ­ 4 5 . In keeping with his general view of the fickle masses, Josephus claims that when his compatriots first thought him dead, they mourned him deeply (BJ 3.432­7). When they discovered that he was flourishing in Roman custody, however, they accused him of cowardice and betrayal ( 3 . 4 3 8 ­ 4 1 ; 3.354). Once he was in Rome, disaffected compatriots considered it more effective to charge him with abetting rebellion (passage given in text). In Vit. 1 3 ­ 1 6 , Josephus describes a trip to Rome before the revolt broke out. ,: 14 15 16 17 18 563 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME Concerning Josephus' friends and associates in R o m e , we have but a few hints. T h e 'classical conception of J o s e p h u s ' 19 assumed a simple though erratic model: he first wrote the Bellum Iudaicum under direct Flavian commission, in A r a m a i c and then Greek, as a w a r n ­ ing to the Parthians and their allies. A t that time, he was a paid favourite of the regime and this allegedly reveals itself in the work's flattery of Vespasian and Titus. U n d e r an anti­intellectual Domitian, however, w h o allegedly repudiated the friends of his father and brother (Cass. Dio 6 7 . 2 . 1 ) , he lost his livelihood and was compelled to seek the help of the literary patron Epaphroditus named in the later works (AJ 1.8; Vit. 4 3 0 ; Ap. LI; 2.196). T o Epaphroditus Josephus resourcefully marketed himself as an expert on things J u d a e a n ; his Antiquitates Judaicae also attempted, opportunistically, to repair his rela­ tionship with his compatriots—perhaps even advocating in R o m e for the new rabbinic movement in J u d a e a . 2 0 Each component of this neat scheme has in principle been laid to rest, 21 though one occasionally hears ghostly echoes. 22 Most impor­ tant for us, Josephus' later compositions reveal not the slightest embar­ rassment over the War but refer the audience to it as a 'precise' (ocKpiPeaxepov, jxex' ocKpifieiaq) account (AJ 1 . 1 ­ 4 , 2 0 3 ; 1 3 . 7 2 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 . 1 1 ; 2 0 . 2 5 8 ­ 9 ; Vit. 12, 4 1 2 ; Ap. 1 . 5 4 ­ 5 ) . This Josephan habit invites us to imagine a broad continuity of audience in R o m e throughout his writing career. W h o , then, were Josephus' friends in R o m e ? O n the one hand, he insinuates a certain familiarity with K i n g Agrippa II (Vit. 3 4 3 , 3 5 5 ­ 6 , 393), the great­grandson of K i n g Herod w h o had grown up Once there, he met a Judaean mime­writer or actor named Aliturus, who helped him meet Poppaea. This account, if factual, presupposes some connections with the Judaean community, though it is hard to gauge how such contacts would have held up in his very different post­war circumstances. See Bilde (1988) 1 2 8 ­ 4 1 . Weber (1921); Laqueur (1920) 1 2 6 ­ 7 ; Thackeray (1929) 2 7 ­ 8 ; Smith (1956) 6 7 ­ 8 1 ; Cohen (1979) 86, 2 3 7 ­ 4 1 ; Attridge (1984) 1 9 2 ­ 2 2 7 . On the relation of the Greek War to the Aramaic: Hata (1975) 8 9 ­ 1 0 8 ; the purpose of the Greek War. Lindner (1972); Rajak (1983) 6 5 ­ 1 4 3 , 1 8 5 ­ 2 2 2 ; Bilde (1979) 1 7 9 ­ 2 0 2 ; Bilde (1988) 7 5 ­ 9 ; its flattery of the Flavians as merely de rigueur. Yavetz (1975) 4 1 1 ­ 3 2 ; Josephus' utter lack of privilege or reward under the Flavians: Mason (1998) 7 4 ­ 5 ; Domitian's treatment of his predecessors' associates: Jones (1992) 5 9 ­ 7 1 ; the Antiquitates Iudaicae as pro­rabbinic propaganda (presupposing that rab­ binic Judaism was already a recognisable entity in the late first century): Grabbe (1992) 5 9 3 ­ 4 . Schwartz (1990) 10; Grabbe (1992) 474. 19 2 0 21 2 2 564 STEVE MASON in R o m e and, after the w a r , become conspicuously successful there (Cass. Dio 6 5 . 1 5 . 3 ­ 5 ) . 2 3 T h e king's sister Berenice was Titus' lover in the 70s CE, before the latter's accession (Tac. Hist. 2.2; Suet. Tit. 7.1). W h e r e a s the Flavians received the War only after its comple­ tion (and so did not commission it), Josephus claims that Agrippa sent him sixty­two letters about the book, some of these apparendy while he was still writing it (Vit. 3 6 4 ­ 7 ) . He gives A g r i p p a and Berenice the leading roles in articulating his o w n anti­revolt senti­ ments in the War (BJ 2 . 3 4 4 ­ 4 0 7 ) and he continues to honour them throughout his works (e.g., Vit. 3 6 4 ­ 7 ; Ap. Herodian family in R o m e are a priori 1.51). M e m b e r s of the m o r e likely than the Flavians to have taken an interest in the labours of their capable compatriot. O n the other hand, in his later works Josephus names Epaphroditus and his circle. M o r e important than the identity of this elusive is what Josephus actually says about him (AJ 1.8­9). A figure 24 solicitous patron, lover of culture and of histories in particular, he has report­ edly drafted Josephus into writing, or perhaps completing, the oeuvre. Josephus compares him to K i n g Ptolemy II, w h o had requested a Greek translation of the J u d a e a n laws long before (AJ 1 . 1 0 ­ 1 2 ) . Like the high priest Eleazar, w h o fulfilled Ptolemy's request, Josephus knows better than to h o a r d (cpGoveco) the J u d a e a n s ' good things. Magnanimously, he will share these with Epaphroditus and, on his account (or through his mediation, 8 i a ce), with all other lovers of truth (cf. Ap. 2.296). Thus Josephus postures as one w h o has been pressed by a group of Greek­speaking non­Jews in R o m e to provide an overview of J u d a e a n history and culture. W e now need to ask 2 3 This success explains Juvenal's hostility toward the barbarus ('barbarian', Sat. 6.158). There are two known candidates. The freedman Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus (Suda\ died 9 6 ­ 9 8 CE), grammarian and literary critic specialising in Greek epic, amassed a large library and was recognised with a statue (CIL 6.9454). Those who support his candidacy include Laqueur (1920) 2 3 ­ 3 0 ; Thackeray (1929) 53; Rajak (1983) 223; Schwartz (1990) 1 6 ­ 1 7 ; Sterling (1992) 2 3 9 ­ 4 0 n. 66. Alternatively, Nero's former a libellis, who helped expose the Pisonian conspiracy and then assisted in the emperor's suicide (Suet. Mr. 49; Tac. Ann. 15.55; Cass. Dio 63.29), some­ time master of the philosopher Epictetus (Arr. Epict. Diss. 1.1.20, 1 9 . 1 9 ­ 2 0 , 2 6 . 1 1 ­ 1 2 ) , who later appeared in Domitian's court, where he was executed as a warning to other courtiers who might wish to assist an emperor in dying (died 9 5 / 9 6 CE: Suet. Dom. 1 4 ­ 1 5 ; Cass. Dio 67.14.4), is favoured by Niese (1896) 2 2 6 ­ 7 ; Luther (1910) 6 1 ­ 3 ; Nodet (1990) 4 n. 1; Mason (1998) 9 8 ­ 1 0 1 . But the name was common enough, also an honorific (Plut. Suit. 34). 2 4 565 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME what the contents of the work that he supplied in response to this request reveal about his audience's values and interests. Josephus addresses his Antiquitates Judaicae- Vita, after Epaphroditus' circle, to the 'entire Greek world' (obtocai. . . xoiq "EAAnoiv, AJ 1.5, 9; 2 0 . 2 6 2 ) . Generally speaking, scholars have taken him at his w o r d and imagined a vague international audience: 'the G r a e c o ­ R o m a n world', 'gentile public opinion', 'the Greek world at large', or some similarly abstract combination of Greeks and J e w s . publication practices, 26 25 Given ancient however, and the need for a community of support around the author and his developing book, w e should look first for a real audience in R o m e . 27 This is especially so because, when he speaks of the Greeks as a body, Josephus is typically dis­ paraging (47 1 . 1 2 1 , 1 2 9 ; Vit. 4 0 ; Ap. 1 . 2 ­ 2 9 ; cf. BJ 1 . 1 3 ­ 1 6 ) — i n the R o m a n fashion. 28 The hope for a vast and indeterminate future read­ ership was made famous by Thucydides (1.22.4) and became a stan­ dard line in his successors. No self­respecting historian, including Josephus (Ap. 1.53), would claim to be writing for some ephemeral interest (cf. Lucian Hist. 13). Yet M a r k M u n n has persuasively argued that even Thucydides had in view pressing circumstances (the eve of the Corinthian war) and a particular audience (the Athenian coun­ cil in deliberation). 29 M u n n reads between the lines. Similarly, it is Josephus' original circumstances and the concerns of his audience in R o m e , circa 9 3 ­ 9 4 CE, that we seek. 2 5 Quotations from, respectively: Thackeray (1929) 5 1 ; Attridge (1984) 226; Sterling (1992) 302. Others have posited that Josephus wrote either to catch the eye of the new rabbinic movement at Yavneh in Judaea or that he addressed 'the Roman government' on behalf of this movement (Smith [1956] 72). Though I have cited his comment about a Greek audience, Sterling (1992) 2 9 8 ­ 3 0 8 actually envisions Greek, Roman and Jewish audiences; cf. Feldman (1998) 132. E.g., White (1975) 299; Starr (1987) 2 1 3 ­ 2 3 ; Harris (1989) 2 2 2 ­ 9 ; Fantham (1996) 1 8 3 ­ 2 2 1 ; Potter (1999a) 2 3 ­ 4 4 . The fact that Josephus occasionally explains Roman customs to his audience (AJ 18.195; 19.24) does not contradict the supposition of a primary Roman audi­ ence (contra Sterling [1992] 304 n. 369). Throughout the work he explains Judaean customs and frequendy he speaks of the Greeks in the third person (e.g., AJ 1.38, 39, 73, 126, 129, 168, 284, 305; 15.371; 2.247; Vit. 12), even though he claims to write for the Greek world (1.5, 9). Just as we may not exclude Greeks or Judaeans from his hoped­for later audiences on the basis of his explanations of Greek and Judaean matters (AJ 1 . 1 2 8 ­ 9 ; 3.317; 1 4 . 1 ­ 3 , 1 8 6 ­ 7 ; 16.175; 17.254; Vit. 1, 12), occasional remarks about Roman customs do not speak against a Roman audience. For Roman characterisations of Greeks, see Balsdon (1979) 3 0 ­ 5 4 . Munn (2000) 3 1 5 ­ 2 3 . 2 6 27 2 8 2 9 566 STEVE MASON The Antiquitates J u d a i c a e ­ V i t a as a Work for the Roman Elite T h e vague scholarly conception of Josephus' Greek audience has generated a strong predisposition to overlook Latin models in favour of Greek precedents, especially the tragedians, Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Strabo and Nicolaus of Damas­ cus. 30 This is more understandable at the level of phrasing, since Josephus writes Greek, than it is with respect to conceptual paradigms and historiography. Admittedly, Josephus' lone reference to a Latin author, 'Titus Livius, the author of the R o m a n history' (Trcoq AiPioq 6 xfjq TcojiaiKfjc; iaxopiaq G\)Yypa(pei><;, AJ 14.68), m a y be explained away as the vestige of a Greek source. Not so easy to ignore, however, is his apparent use of more recent Latin historians for the extended narrative concerning Gaius and Claudius, which includes of Cluvius Rufus (AJ mention 1 9 . 9 1 ­ 2 ) . Wiseman, w h o has worked closely on this section, is confident that Josephus knew three Flavian­era Latin histories, using two of them as his main sources; his Greek echoes the Latin in places. 32 31 also, that Note further Josephus' informed if brief observations on the various histories of Nero's principate (AJ f 2 0 . 1 5 4 ­ 7 ) and of the recent civil w a r (BJ 4 . 4 9 6 : EAAf|vcov xe K a i Tcojiaicov, 'both Greek and Roman') that were circulating in R o m e . 33 T h e simplest explanation of these references is that Josephus knew some Latin histories at first hand. W h e t h e r he was reading Latin or not, the Antiquitates Judaicae- Vita 3 0 See, for example, Thackeray (1929) 1 0 0 ­ 2 4 (who attributes occasional remi­ niscences of Latin texts to Josephus' assistants: pp. 1 1 8 ­ 1 9 ) ; Shutt (1961) 5 9 ­ 1 0 9 ; Feldman (1984) 8 2 1 , 836; Ladouceur (1993) 1 8 ­ 3 8 ; Mader (2000) 1 ­ 1 8 . Wiseman proposes Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus. For a history of the discussion by the pre­eminent Josephus scholar of our time who, however, doubted that Cluvius Rufus was Josephus' source and minimised his use of Latin material, see Feldman (1965) 2 1 2 ­ 1 3 ; Feldman (1984) 8 2 1 , 836; in his most recent work (e.g., Feldman [1998] 269 n. 105), he appears more open to potential Latin influences. Wiseman (1991) xii­xiv. My recent edition of Josephus' Vita (Mason 2 0 0 1 : translation and commentary) identifies a large number of Josephan phrases that suggest Latin equivalents or in some cases transliterate Latin terms, e.g., 4 n. 8, 7 n. 20, 9 n. 34, 12 n. 52, 22 n. 96, 31 n. 143, 37 n. 1 8 1 , 38 n. 188, 40 n. 203, 52 n. 292, 61 n. 376, 64 n. 4 1 2 , 76 n. 555, 78 n. 578, 106 n. 952, 107 n. 953, 109 n. 984. His description of pro­Roman accounts of the Judaean war (BJ 1.2­3, 6­9), to which his War responds, may also be relevant. The fact that he goes on to cen­ sure 'Greeks' for not deigning to write contemporary history (1.13­14) suggests that these histories are in Latin. 31 3 2 3 3 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME 567 assumes concepts, images and values that would have suited a R o m a n audience particularly well. Structure Because litde research has been done on the structure of the Antiquitates 3 Judaicae, * and yet we need a picture of the whole as a basis for analysis, I offer m y overview here. M y captions are unavoidably ten­ dentious, but I hope to show their value in what follows. Prologue (1.1­26) P A R T I: First T e m p l e (Ant. 1 ­ 1 0 ) A. The L a w g i v e r ' s E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n ( 1 ­ 4 ) Antecedents: Creation to the deaths of Isaac and Rebecca; Abraham the first convert (vol. 1)—in Mesopotamia Antecedents: Jacob and Esau to the Exodus (vol. 2) The Judaean constitution: summary of priesdy laws (vol. 3) Forty years in desert, rebellion to the death of Moses; summary of the law as constitution (vol. 4) B. First Phase: s e n a t e , k i n g s a n d high p r i e s t s of Eli's d e s c e n t (5­8) Conquest of Canaan under Joshua (vol. 5) Conflicts with Philistines under Samuel and Saul (vol. 6) Zenith of the first monarchy: the reign of David (vol. 7) The reign of Solomon and division of the kingdom (vol. 8) C. Second Phase: decline through corruption o f the constitution ( 9 ­ 1 0 ) Problems with neighbours to the fall of the North­ ern Kingdom (vol. 9) CENTRAL PANEL: Fall of the first Temple; the priest­prophet Jeremiah and prophet Daniel assert the Judaean God's control of affairs and predict the Roman era; decisive proof of the Judaean code's effectiveness P A R T II: S e c o n d T e m p l e (Ant. 1 1 ­ 2 0 ) A. R e ­ e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e a r i s t o c r a c y t h r o u g h t h e g l o r i o u s H a s m o n e a n house; i t s decline ( 1 1 ­ 1 3 ) Return of Jews under Cyrus to Alexander the Great (vol. 11) 3 4 Elementary structural observations are made by Attridge (1984) 2 1 1 ­ 1 3 , who finds little that unifies the latter half of the work. Bilde (1988) 8 9 ­ 9 1 goes further, breaking down the two halves according to a narrative rationale. For what follows, see Mason (2000) xx­xxii. We are still in the beginning stages of such literary study. 568 STEVE MASON Successful interaction with the Ptolemaic world from the death of Alexander; translation of the LXX; Tobiad story; the Hasmonean revolt (vol. 12) Zenith of the Hasmonean dynasty with John Hyrca­ nus; monarchy and decline to the death of Alexandra Salome (vol. 13) B. M o n a r c h y w r i t l a r g e : H e r o d (14—17) The end of the Hasmoneans; Roman intervention in Judaea; Herod's rise to power; benefits to the Judaeans (vol. 14) Herod's conquest of Jerusalem; building projects and dedication of Temple (vol. 15) Herod at the peak of his power; his domestic conflicts (vol. 16) The end of Herod's life; his son Archelaus (vol. 17) C. W o r l d ­ w i d e effectiveness o f t h e J u d a e a n constitu­ tion ( 1 8 ­ 2 0 ) Judaea becomes a province; Judaeans in Rome; Roman rule to Agrippa I; Herod's descendants; Gaius' plan fails and he is punished; Asinaeus and Anilaeus in Babylonia (vol. 18) Detailed description of Gaius' punishment; promotion of Claudius; career of Agrippa I; the Roman constitutional crisis; Judaeans in Alexandria (vol. 19) From the death of Agrippa I to the eve of the revolt; the con­ version of Adiabene's royal house; causes of the revolt; conclud­ ing remarks (vol. 20) Epilogue ( 2 0 . 2 5 9 ­ 6 8 ) This concentric scheme isolates the theme of 'constitution' as a unifying concern of the Antiquitates Judaicae (noXmia) (and Vita). 35 Against the background of the rise and fall of Jerusalem's two temples, which formed the base of the priesdy aristocracy, Josephus charts the devel­ opment of the J u d a e a n system of government. He (more or less) opens and closes the lengthy narrative with stories of important per­ sons, A b r a h a m (AJ 1 . 1 4 8 ­ 2 5 6 ) and the royalty of Adiabene ( 2 0 . 1 7 ­ 9 6 ) , w h o forsook their native Eastern traditions in order to live by the J u d a e a n constitution. This structure also exposes Josephus' highly editorialised presentation of the R o m a n constitutional crises that accompanied the accessions of Gaius and Claudius (AJ 18.205­309; 35 The more important discussions of constitutional language in the Antiquitates Iudaicae are Attridge (1976) 6 2 ­ 6 ; Schwartz (1983­84); Feldman (1998) 1 4 4 ­ 8 . None of these deals, however, with the centrality of this theme or its significance for a Roman audience. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME 569 1 9 . 1 ­ 2 7 3 ) , as a counterpart to his articulation of Moses' peerless con­ stitution (3.84, 2 1 3 , 322). The Historiography of the Antiquitates J u d a i c a e : Roman Resonances Before turning to the specific issue of constitutions, we observe that the Antiquitates Judaicae embodies w h a t are often considered distinc­ tive traits of R o m a n historiography. 36 Namely, it is a character­dri­ ven history, a story of exempla that invites the author's and audience's moral­rhetorical evaluation of each individual as a guide for present conduct. A l r e a d y in his Bellum Judaicum, Josephus was conscious of exceeding the proper limits of personal involvement with his subject (BJ 1 . 9 ­ 1 1 ; 5 . 1 9 ­ 2 0 ) — a n authorial engagement that has been char­ 37 acterised as the central innovation of Latin literature. In the Antiquitates Judaicae he continues a thoroughly personal and partisan moral assess­ ment. His own life story caps off the narrative with a detailed demon­ stration of his aristocratic character (Vit. 4 3 0 ) . In R o m e , this moral, introspective development had something to do with the self­understanding of the elite and something to do with the confluence of rhetoric and historiography, at least from Cicero onward. W h e r e a s it appears that Greek handbooks did not include prescriptions for history (Cic. De Or. 2.61), in R o m e historiography was married with the rhetorical project, especially epideictic. 38 ricians were concerned with arguing 'character' (rjOoq, ingenium, Rheto­ mores), 39 and that became a leading function of R o m a n history­writing. Even though history remained a separate discipline from o r a t o r y sensu stricto,* 0 it had been brought under the umbrella of rhetoric and was now subject to rhetorical analysis (Cic. De Or. 2 . 3 5 ­ 3 6 ; cf. Leg. 1 . 1 ­ 5 ; Quint. Inst. 2 . 4 . 3 ; 9 . 4 . 1 8 , 1 2 9 ; 1 0 . 1 0 1 ­ 4 ) . O n e sees the more explicit 3 6 See Mellor (1993) 4 7 ­ 6 7 (on Tacitus); Cape (1997) 217; Mellor (1999) 1 0 ­ 1 1 , 44, 5 1 ; Potter (1999a) 67, 1 3 0 ­ 5 1 ; Kraus and Woodman (1997) 11 (on Sallust), 5 5 ­ 6 (on Livy). So Otis (1967) 1 9 8 ­ 2 0 3 . Compare Josephus on Jerusalem with the description by Otis (1967) 198 of his Roman counterparts: 'They see Rome . . . as a moral persona, a social persona of which they are a part and to which therefore they have introspective access'. Woodman (1988) 7 0 ­ 1 1 6 is fundamental. On the distinctively Roman interest in the rhetoric of character, see May 1988: 6 ­ 8 ; Kennedy (1994) 1 0 2 ­ 5 8 . So Potter (1999a) 1 3 5 ­ 8 . 3 7 3 8 3 9 10 570 STEVE MASON moralising on the biographical level in Cicero's surveys o f Rome's constitution and laws (De Republica, 14.1­6; 7, lug. 9 5 . 3 ­ 4 ) , Livy (1 praef. De Legibus), in Sallust (Cat. 5 . 1 ­ 8 ; 1 0 ) and Tacitus (e.g., Hist. 1 . 6 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 2 2 , 23). Somewhat like Livy (1 praef. 9 ­ 1 2 ) , Josephus announces the moral 'lesson' (TO GUVOXOV, AJ 1 . 1 4 ; TO nai5e\)\ia, 1 . 2 1 ) of his work in the prologue, namely: all those w h o follow the divinely originated laws of the constitution a n d imitate the Creator's virtues find 'happiness' (euScajiovm), while those w h o do not suffer inevitable misfortune (AJ 1 . 1 4 , 2 0 ) . This is apparendy more sanguine than the standard R o m a n portrait of steady moral decline (Sail. Cat. 5 . 9 ­ 1 3 . 5 ; Cic. Div. 2 . 2 . 4 ; Hor. Carm. 3 . 6 ; Livy 1 praef. 6 ­ 9 ; Catull. 6 4 ; J u v . Sat. 3 . 2 6 8 ­ 3 1 4 ) ; yet it is based on the shared premise that the character of key indi­ viduals determines the condition of the state. In keeping with his moral quest, Josephus tells the story of J u d a e a n history through the lives of great individuals. 41 He does not describe 'the period of the monarchy' but rather the characters of Saul, David and their successors (AJ 6 ­ 7 ) ; not 'Babylonian affairs' but the moral behaviour of the brothers Anilaeus and Asinaeus, as well as the con­ sequences of that behaviour ( 1 8 . 3 1 0 ­ 7 9 ) . Routinely, he pauses at the end of a life to summarise its vices and virtues (e.g., AJ 1 . 2 5 6 , 3 4 6 ; 2 . 1 9 8 ­ 2 0 4 ; 4 . 3 2 7 ­ 3 1 ; 5 . 1 1 7 ­ 1 8 , 2 5 3 ; 6 . 2 9 2 ­ 4 ; 7 . 3 7 ­ 8 , 3 9 0 ­ 1 ) . Near the end of K i n g Saul's reign, for example, he halts the narrative in grand fashion: xov 8e noXeci Kai 8r|uoi<; Kai eOveai cuiLKpepovxa Xoyov Kai 7cpoar|KovTa xoiq dyaOotx;, ixp' oi) 7cpoax9t|aovxai 7cdvxe^ dperriv SICOKEW Kai ^rjXovv i d 56£av Kai uvr||ir)v aicoviov Tiapaaxeiv 8\)vrjo6|Lieva. (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 6.343) Now I shall relate something beneficial to cities and peoples and nations alike—indeed important for good persons—by which everyone will be stimulated to pursue virtue and to desire those things that can pro­ duce glory and eternal renown. Similarly, he relates the miserable death of Gaius because it will bring 'encouragement for those in sinking fortunes and a call to moderation for those w h o suppose that good fortune is f o r e v e r — a n d not some­ thing that will turn out badly unless virtue is brought 41 Feldman (1998) 7 4 ­ 5 . alongside' 571 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME (7capaM,\)0iav xoiq ev xuxcaq Kei^evoic; K a i acocppovia|i6v xoiq oiojievoi<; caSiov TT|V e u x u x i a v , aXXa \ri\ eTujiexacpepeiv KOCKGCK; apexfjq amf\ Tcapayevojievriq, AJ \ir\ 19.16). Noteworthy in this context is Josephus' effort to achieve balance in his moral assessments and to render his characters plausible human beings with conflicting drives toward good and evil. Such a rounded psychological analysis, with its resulting ambiguities, was a hallmark of R o m a n historiography. 42 Even when describing unrepentant vil­ lains, Josephus looks for intelligible motives. T h e y are neither static nor two­dimensional representatives of particular virtues o r vices. Samson was brave and Solomon wise, though both w e r e vulnerable to w o m e n (AJ 5 . 3 1 7 ; 8 . 2 1 1 ) . Saul, w h o lost divine favour through disobedience (AJ 6 . 1 6 6 , 378), was nonetheless a paradigm of manli­ ness ( 6 . 3 4 4 ­ 5 0 ) . Although Iosephus leaves no question of the fratri­ cide Aristobulus' pride and guilt, he commends this king's temperament (AJ 1 3 . 3 1 8 ­ 1 9 ) . A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s , a brutal dictator, is to be under­ stood in part as a victim of circumstances (AJ 1 3 . 3 8 0 ­ 3 ) . His wife and successor A l e x a n d r a Salome, w h o m Josephus blames for the fall of the Hasmonean house, nevertheless 'kept the nation at peace' (ev eipf|VTi xo eOvoq 8ie(puA,a£ev, AJ 1 3 . 4 3 0 ­ 2 ) . Josephus finds a w a y to say something positive even about the notorious princeps was highly educated and a superb orator (AJ Gaius: he 19.208­9). This concern for rounded portraiture is most obvious in the case of K i n g Herod. W h e r e a s the War had offered unstinting praise, in keeping with its presentation of Herod as a faithful R o m a n ally, the Antiquitates Judaicae both praises his Saul­like embodiment of manly courage (AJ 1 4 . 4 3 0 , 4 4 2 ­ 4 , 4 6 2 ­ 3 , 4 8 2 ­ 3 ; 1 5 . 1 2 1 ­ 5 4 , 305) and exco­ riates his pride and transgression of the laws ( 1 4 . 4 0 3 ; 16.1­4, 179­87; 17.151, 15.267­76; 1 8 0 ­ 1 ) , which propel him to a disastrous end ( 1 6 . 1 8 8 ­ 9 , 3 9 5 ­ 4 0 4 ; 1 7 . 1 6 8 ­ 7 1 ) . Throughout the narrative, Herod acts from the understandable h u m a n motives of anger and jealousy. Also in its details Josephus' narrative evokes the standard accounts of ancient R o m a n lore. Both R o m a n s and J u d a e a n s originated in 4 2 Cf. Sallust's appreciative juxtaposition of the opposing views and temperaments of Caesar and Cato (Catull. 5 0 ­ 4 ) on which Kraus and Woodman (1999) 19; Livy's well­known effort to be even­handed both in portraying conflicting traditions and in presenting balanced characters (already Foster 1919), although he does not delve deeply into motives; Tacitus' masterful explorations of his subjects' individual mo­ tives (Syme [1958] 1 3 8 ­ 6 5 ; Mellor (1993) 6 8 ­ 8 6 ; also Plutarch's De Vita Caesarum with comparisons. 572 STEVE MASON faraway places and conquered their future homelands with divine aid (Livy 1 . 1 ­ 3 ; AJ 5 . 1 ­ 7 9 ) . Like Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus obviates false rumors about the nation's origin (as if from wander­ ing vagabonds or expelled lepers) with an accurate account (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.4.2; AJ 3 . 2 6 4 ­ 6 ; Ap. 1.279, 3 0 5 ­ 1 1 ) . J u d a e a n s and R o m a n s have had to overcome Greek ignorance about their exis­ tence (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1 . 8 9 . 1 ; Ap. 1 . 2 ­ 2 9 ) . A s newborn babies, both Romulus and Moses were the objects of a king's wrath, which led to their exposure in rivers (Livy 1 . 4 . 1 ­ 6 ; Dion. Hal. Ant. 1 . 7 9 . 4 ­ 7 ; AJ Rom. 2 . 2 1 8 ­ 2 3 ) . Both were rescued from the water, how­ ever, and raised by those w h o had no knowledge of their destinies (Livy 1.4.7­9; AJ 2 . 2 2 4 ­ 3 0 ) . Both ended their lives by being enveloped in clouds (Livy 1 . 1 6 . 1 ; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2 . 5 6 . 2 ; AJ 4.326). Josephus' parallels with Dionysius are all the more significant when the latter distinguishes R o m a n from G r e e k w a y s . For e x a m p l e , Dionysius claims that rejection of unseemly fables was a distinctive trait of the Romans: xoix; 5e 7tapa8e5ouevo\)<;rcepiauxcov ^IUGOIX;, ev oiq pAxxGcprjuiai xive<; eveiai icax' auxcov r\ KaKnyopiai, novripovq Kai dvcocpeA,ei<; Kai daxf|uova<; xmoXaPcbv eivai Kai OVK OXI Gecov aXXa ovfr dvOpamcov dyaOcov d^ioix; anavxaq e£e|3aA,e. (Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 2.18.3) All the traditional fables [ut>0oi] concerning them [the Gods], in which there are some insults against them or accusations, Romulus rejected; he regarded them as evil, pointless and indecent, as unworthy not only of the Gods but of good men. Similarly, Josephus' prologue attacks 'other legislators' (aXXoi vofioGexai) for attributing human weaknesses to the Gods and, following these fables (jiuGoi), for framing laws that excuse bad human behaviour (47 1.22). Moses, by first positing a worthy view of G o d as the per­ fection of virtue (AJ 1.15), created a moral basis for imitation (AJ 1.23). Both Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 2.20.1) and Josephus (AJ 1.24) admit that some fables may have redeeming allegorical uses. Further, Dionysius has the Romans as a people reject the claims of some philosophers that the Gods do not intervene in human affairs (Ant. Rom. 2.68.2; 20.9). Josephus makes divine providence the Leitmotif of his history: in his case it is Daniel's predictions that demonstrate providence beyond all cavil and against the claims of the Epicureans (AJ 10.276­81). FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME 573 Dionysius also argues that, unlike the Greeks, w h o tend to impose severe restrictions on citizenship and yet easily assimilate foreign cults, the R o m a n s have a habit of extending citizenship to conquered nations through colonies, which then fall under R o m a n law (Ant. Rom. 2 . 1 6 ­ 1 7 ) . Although they are hospitable to foreign cults, the R o m a n s ' dignity prevents them from adopting alien traditions as their own (Ant. Rom. 2.19). In his concluding work, similarly, Josephus will confirm that the J u d a e a n s practice the ethnic 'separation' (ocjii^ia) for which they are famous (Ap. 2 . 2 5 8 ; cf. AJ 13.245), refusing to partake of others' customs. Y e t they offer a w a r m welcome to those w h o wish to j o i n them in observing their own laws (Ap. 2 . 2 6 1 ) . The Antiquitates Judaicae itself provides a shining example, in the royal fam­ ily of Adiabene, of foreign dignitaries embracing J u d a e a n culture (AJ 20.17­96). These m a n y parallels invite a closer contextual examination of the constitutional theme in Josephus' work. The Judaean and Roman Constitutions Issues of government and constitution (rcoAaxem, res publico) were ubiq­ uitous in Greek and Roman authors (Hdt. 3 . 8 0 ­ 2 ; PI. Rep. 8 . 5 4 3 ­ 9 . 5 7 6 ; Arist. Pol. 3 . 5 . 1 ­ 2 [ 1 2 7 9 a ] ) . Polybius invites the r e a d e r to test (8oKi|id£eiv) whether the R o m a n constitution is not the best ( 6 . 1 . 4 ­ 5 ) . Rome's government is even better than the divine Spartan consti­ tution (6.48.2), he proposes, because it balances all three types— monarchy, aristocracy and d e m o c r a c y — a n d so provides a safeguard against fluctuation from one type to another (6.18). Dionysius is fas­ cinated by constitutions (rcotaxeica). He has Romulus establish the two orders of nobility (euTraxptScu) and plebeians (Ant. Rom. 2.8), refine the crude Greek system of patronage so that it was based upon mutual affection ( 2 . 9 . 2 ­ 3 ) , put the senate (yepouoia) in charge of all affairs—as priests, governors and magistrates—as a check on the king (2.9.1) and thus create a perfecdy harmonious state (2.7.2). In a leisurely account of the conflict between the orders (e.g., Ant. Rom. 7 . 3 8 ­ 5 9 ) , Dionysius reinforces the point that a unique balance of interests (7.50.2) makes the R o m a n constitution the best (xo G%WCL xfjc; noXixeiac, Kpdxioxov, 7.56.3). A m o n g R o m a n authors, constitutional issues tended to be dis­ cussed not in terms of abstract analysis but from the perspective of 574 STEVE MASON the R o m a n statesman's practical concern for his own government. 43 Tacitus' w o r d plays with 'freedom' (libertas, Agr. 1 ­ 3 ) and 'slavery' or 'mastery' (seruitium, seruitus, e.g., Hist. 1 . 1 , 4)—under Augustus we had 'peace and a princeps' 44 (pace et principe, Ann. 3 . 2 8 . 1 ) — h a v e to do with just such questions of the state's welfare. Most R o m a n historians dis­ played a senatorial­aristocratic interest, ing for a renewal of the republic. 46 45 even if they were not look­ Given Domitian's flaunting of his monarchical style—moving his court to A l b a Longa, assuming the consulship ten times and the position of censor perpetuus, thus dis­ pensing with even the most perfunctory symbols of co­operation with 47 the patres ('fathers') —issues of governance must have been constandy 48 on the minds of elite men in the capital. Josephus was not part of the R o m a n elite, but he focussed the narrative of his country's gov­ ernment on just these issues. His prologue declares his subject to be the 'ancient lore' (otpx­ caoAoyia) and 'political constitution' (8idxoc£i<; xov rcoXixeujiocxog) of the J u d a e a n s (AJ 1.5). He calls what Ptolemy II wanted a 'consti­ tution' (noXxxeia, AJ 1.10); cf. noXixex>\ia, 'body politic', 1.13). By ask­ ing the reader 'to assess' (SoKijid^eiv) the J u d a e a n lawgiver's work (AJ 1.15), he implicidy engages the audience in a Polybian sort of dialogue concerning the best constitution, though he will deal explic­ idy only with the vicissitudes of his own government. In confirmation of the theme's importance, he mentions it several times in his con­ cluding remarks (AJ 2 0 . 2 2 9 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 1 ) . Again, the final quarter of the sequel to the Antiquitates Judaicae, 'constitution' (noXixeia) Contra Apionem, extols the J u d a e a n as the finest in the world (Ap. 2 . 1 8 8 , 2 2 2 , 2 2 6 , 2 7 2 ­ 3 ) . Near the end of that book, Josephus recalls that he wrote the Antiquitates Judaicae in order to give 'an exact account of our laws and constitution' (Ap. 2.287). In his view, then, his major work was about the J u d a e a n constitution. After describing J u d a e a n origins, Josephus moves quickly to the constitution in volumes 3 and 4. Explicit constitutional language is 4 3 Cf. Mellor (1993) 8 8 ­ 9 (on Tacitus); Kraus and Woodman (1997) 7; Potter (1999a) 52. Cf. Plass (1988) 3 ­ 6 8 . Potter (1999a) 1 5 3 ­ 4 . Syme (1958) 5 4 7 ­ 6 5 ; 1970: 10. Jones (1992) 2 3 ­ 3 0 . On the more general climate at the end of the first century, see Syme (1970) 118 40. 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 575 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME present throughout this section (AJ 3 . 8 4 , 2 1 3 ; 4 . 4 5 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 3 ­ 5 , 1 9 6 ­ 8 , 3 0 2 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 2 ) . T h e terms of the constitution provide the criterion against which characters will be judged in the balance of the work (e.g., AJ 5 . 9 8 , 1 7 9 ; 1 5 . 2 5 4 , 2 8 1 ; 18.9). Josephus' portrait of the J u d a e a n constitution emphasises charac­ teristically R o m a n virtues: dignity, austerity, severity, simplicity, jus­ tice, moderation, restraint—the attributes of C a t o the Elder, which one frequendy encounters as the 'old ways' (cf. Polyb. 6 . 7 . 5 ­ 8 , 4 8 . 3 , 5 6 . 1 ­ 5 ; Sail. Cat. 1 1 ­ 1 3 ; Cic. Rep. 1 . 2 7 ­ 8 ; Livy 1 praef. 1 0 ­ 1 2 ; Tac. Hist. 1 . 1 4 ; Plut. Cat. Mai. 1 . 3 ­ 4 ; 2 . 1 , 3). Livy, famously, blames the present moral turpitude on the loss of traditional disciplina (Livy 1 praef. 9), and it is that Sabine virtue of 'stern and austere discpline' (disciplina tetrica ac tristi), unaffected by foreign mores, that made Numa such a noble spirit (1.18.4). In contrast to 'the lax customs of the Greeks' (xoiq 'EAAnviKoic; Ti6ecu xoiq eKAeXunevoiq, Dion. Hal. Rom. 2 . 2 7 . 1 ; cf. 2 . 2 4 . 2 ­ 6 ) , according to Dionysius, Ant. Romulus' laws instilled 'discipline' (euKoapia): they were 'severe and intolerant of vice' (auaxripd K a i |mao7covTip6<;, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.24.1). Dionysius illustrates R o m a n discipline through the power granted the paterfamilias to keep women and children in line: whereas the Greeks would disregard a woman's drunkenness, Romulus permit­ ted husbands to punish this and also its consequence, adultery, with death (Ant. Rom. 2.25.7). Again, whereas Greek constitutions placed children in their parents' charge for only a brief time and prescribed mild punishments for disrespectful youth, Romulus recognised that such indulgence was dangerous. He gave more or less complete power to fathers, throughout the father's lifedme, extending as far as corporal and capital punishment or sale into slavery (Ant. Rom. 2.26). In the context of widely perceived social deterioration, many R o m a n audiences evidently welcomed an ideal of judicial severity. W e can tell that Josephus prizes the severity of J u d a e a n justice from his comparative remarks in the Contra Apionem: because most legislators have left so m a n y loopholes, such as the mere payment of fines for adultery, violation of the laws has in other nations become an art (Ap. 2.276). The J u d a e a n s , however, are afraid to transgress their laws, in the certain knowledge of full retribution. This obser­ vation fits with Josephus' statement in Antiquitates Judaicae\ prologue on the bad behaviour encouraged by other legislators through their adoption of myths (AJ 1.22). Similarly, in his precis of the J u d a e a n constitution, he stresses the severity of the punishment for adultery 576 (death: AJ STEVE MASON 4 . 2 4 4 ­ 5 3 ) and also the parents' a u t o n o m y o v e r their young: they may execute persistendy rebellious children (AJ 4.260­4). Josephus thus meets the desire of his R o m a n audience for a judi­ cial system that is tougher on crime and disorder. T o be sure, he also emphasises the fairness and due process of the laws (e.g., AJ 4 . 2 1 8 ­ 4 1 ) , without contradicting the principle of severe punishment for crimes committed. As for the form of government advocated in the J u d a e a n consti­ tution, Josephus is clear: it is a senatorial aristocracy. He has Moses caution the people that 'aristocracy, and the life associated with it, is the noblest. So do not let the desire for any other constitution snare you' (AJ 4.223). This aristocracy places a 'senate' (yepovoia) alongside the high priest (AJ 4.186, 218, 220, 255, 256, 325), perhaps thus achieving the balance prized by Polybius, Cicero and Dionysius. Josephus edits the biblical narrative to make Moses' great successor J o s h u a consult the senate several times (AJ 5.15, 43, 55). This retro­ jection of senates into the nation's early history is closely paralleled in the R o m a n annalists and the later historians w h o have Romulus establish a senate (Livy 1.8.7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.14). 49 Josephus employs the same three Greek words (yepoDcua, ouve8piov, pouA,r|) 50 for the senate that Dionysius uses interchangeably (Ant. Rom. 2.14). Reinterpreting the cycles of sin and repentance in Judges, he adopts the deterioration scheme familiar from R o m a n authors: 'the aris­ tocracy was already falling into corruption: no longer did they appoint the senates or any of the other the leadership formerly legislated' (Kai auvePaivev fi8r| XTJV apioxoKpaxlav 8ie(p0dp0ai, Kai xaq yepoucriaq O U K drceSedcvucav o\>8' dpxfiv ou8eji{av xcov rcpoxepov vevop,ia|xevcov, AJ 5.135). This failure results in civil w a r . A n obvious point of comparison between the J u d a e a n and R o m a n constitutions is that both inextricably weave matters of state with piety and priesthood. Even though he has Romulus consecrate the first temple in Rome (Livy 1.10.6­7), Livy credits Numa with installing the basic instruments of national piety and the priesthoods (1.20). He then uses Romulus and Numa, yin­yang­like, to measure the bal­ 4 9 Cf. Potter (1999a) 1 5 3 ­ 4 . yepovala: see the references in the main text; Po\)Aj| (though ordinarily used of the Roman senate or other city councils): AJ 2 0 . 1 1 ; Vit. 204; a\)ve8piov: AJ 14.91, 167, 168, 10, 1 7 1 , 175, 1 7 7 ­ 8 0 ; 15.4; 20.200; Vit. 62; TO KOIVOV: 4 7 6.17; 13.366; Vit. 65, 72, 190). Cf. Mason (1996) 1 8 7 ­ 2 2 8 . 5 0 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME 577 anced character of future kings (1.32.4). Livy and Dionysius agree that the R o m a n s are unique in the degree to which they subject all other concerns to piety (Livy 1 . 2 1 . 1 ; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2 . 1 9 . 2 ­ 3 ) . This balance is perfecdy matched by Josephus, w h o introduces the first high priest A a r o n , brother of Moses (AJ 3 . 1 8 8 ) , as the one to whose descendants the constitution would be entrusted for accurate preservation in perpetuity (AJ 4 . 3 0 4 ; Ap. 1.29­37; 2.184­6). And Josephus claims that the J u d a e a n s excel other nations in placing piety above all other virtues (Ap. 2 . 1 6 4 ­ 7 1 ) . Josephus realises the R o m a n dream of a perfect marriage between priesthood and aristocracy (e.g., Cic. Dom. l . l ) , 51 for in his constitution the aristocrats are by definition the hereditary priesthood (Vit. 1). Perhaps the most telling intersection between Josephus' portrait of the J u d a e a n constitution and R o m a n elite values lies in his pointed anti­monarchical bias. After the death of Romulus, although the sen­ ators tried to maintain government by themselves, the people insisted upon a new king—in fond r e m e m b r a n c e of R o m u l u s (Cic. Rep. 2 . 1 2 . 2 3 ) and 'having not yet enjoyed the sweetness of liberty' (libertatis dulcedine nondum experta; Livy 1.17.3). In Josephus, the reckless behaviour of the prophet Samuel's sons creates a popular demand for kingship. But Samuel is profoundly upset at this 'because of his innate justice and his hatred of kings, for he had enormous affection for aristocracy, as divine and making happy those w h o use this con­ stitution' (8ia XTJV au|i(p\)xov 8 i K o c i o o w n v K a i xo npbq PaoiAiaq jiiooq­ Tixxnxo y a p &eiv&q xr\q d p i a x o K p a x i a q coq Geiaq K a i inaKapiouq Tcoioucmq xoix; xpcojievouq auxfjq xf\ rcoAaxeia, AJ 6.36). Sure enough, once the kingship is in place it proves ruinous, until it is finally taken away with the Babylonian captivity (AJ 10.143­4). W h e n the J u d a e a n s return from captivity, they revert to their ideal constitution and once again live under 'an aristocratic constitution, with the rule of the few' (noXweia . . . apioxoKpaxucfl, u£x' oAayapxiaq, AJ 11.1 l l ) . 31 5 2 A letter to the J u d a e a n s from Antiochus III identifies On Augustus' programme to revive religion, see Syme (1958) 4 4 6 ­ 6 0 ; for Domitian's (consciously similar in many ways), see Jones (1992) 9 9 ­ 1 0 6 . The summary in Ant. 20.234 will describe this same period as one of democ­ racy. Some scholars trace this contradiction to a difference of sources (Attridge [1984] 227 n. 66). Yet these descriptive terms are fluid. Polybius claims that the Roman government could be described with equal justice as a monarchy, aristoc­ racy or democracy depending upon one's focus (6.11.12). Josephus can describe the period of the Judges as both monarchy (AJ 6.85; 20.229) and aristocracy (11.112). 5 2 578 STEVE MASON the senate as their governing body (AJ 1 2 . 1 3 8 , 142) and the Hasmo­ nean J o n a t h a n writes on behalf of 'the senate and the body of priests' (AJ 1 3 . 1 6 6 , 169). T h e early Hasmoneans up until J o h n Hyrcanus, w h o m Josephus reveres, continue this form of government. But then with Aristobulus come both the 'transformation of rule into monar­ chy' (xr\v apxTiv eiq PaaiA,eiav jiexaGeivai) and the rapid decline of the great house (AJ 1 3 . 3 0 0 ­ 1 ) . T h e J u d a e a n people, as Pompey is hearing the rivals Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II make their cases for the throne, 'requested not to be subject to a king, for it was tra­ ditional to obey the priests of the G o d honoured among them. But these men, though descendants of priests, sought to lead the nation into another kind of government, to enslave it' (xo \iev OUK d^iouv PaoitaueaGai• rcdxpiov yap eivai xoiq iepeuai xou xiincojievou n a p ' auxoiq 0eou iceiGapxeiv, ovxaq 8e xouxoix; drcoyovoix; xcov iepecov eiq aXkr\v |iexdy£iv dp%riv xo eOvoq £nxfjoai, AJ 1 4 . 4 1 ) . T h e notion that allegiance to one m a n amounts to slavery is famously shared by Tacitus (e.g., Agr. 2.3). After the Hasmonean house eventually fell, Josephus asserts, the R o m a n Gabinius removed monarchical rule and once again aris­ tocracy was restored (AJ 1 4 . 9 1 ) . T h a t p r o p e r state of affairs has been the norm until Josephus' own time. T h e exceptions to it, especially with the long­ruling monarch Herod ( 3 7 ­ 3 4 BCE), were regrettable. If the J u d a e a n s were going to have a king, Moses had mandated that it be one of their own people (AJ 4.223). Herod, however, was a 'Hemi­Ioudaios' (AJ 1 4 . 4 0 3 ) . 53 This matches Livy's observation that Tarquinius the Corinthian and his son Superbus were considered illegitimate because they were not even Italian, much less R o m a n (Livy 1.40.2). Josephus' portraits of Herod, Herod's descendants and also the R o m a n ruler Gaius serve as notorious examples of what happens when political constitutions are corrupted. Elsewhere he presents the very leaders of the priestly­aristocratic system as fervently committed to 'democracy', by which he apparently means 'justice for the people' or the like, not something like Athenian government (BJ 4.319, 358). His broad summary characterisation of the early post­exilic period as democratic, in the pos­ itive sense that it was good for the people—before the rise of the late Hasmonean monarchy—seems to be only a different perspective on the period that he else­ where labels aristocracy. It is perhaps in the vein of Tacitus' sharp contrast between slavery (that is, the principate in most instances) and 'liberty' (that is, senatorial control): Agr. 2 ­ 3 . On Herod's actual status as a Judaean, see Richardson (1996) 5 2 ­ 8 0 . 5 3 579 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME T h e standard language for the corruption of monarchy is of course 'tyranny' (xupavvic;, tyrannis). In Herodotus' succinct definition, even the very best of men, if given absolute rule, will become a tyrant w h o 'skews the traditional laws, violates women, and executes with­ out trial' (vojiaid xe Kiveei rcdxpia Kai pidxai yuvaiKaq Kxeivei xe aKpixouq, 3.80). Similarly Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and Dionysius view tyranny as the almost inevitable degenerate form of monarchy (PI. Resp. 8 . 5 6 5 ­ 9 ; Arist. Pol. 3 . 5 . 4 [ 1 2 7 9 b ] ; 4.8 [ 1 2 9 5 a ] ; Polyb. 6.4.8; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.55.3). Livy uses the tyrann-group often, begin­ ning with K i n g Amulius, w h o had seized power and tried to rob his brother of heirs (Livy 1.6.1). Although Tacitus employs these words very sparingly, preferring to evoke the corruption of power by other terms, 54 he obliquely calls Tiberius a tyrant (Ann. 6.6). Brooks Otis remarks: 'All we can be really sure of is that Tacitus' theme is tyranny—its progressive deterioration and its ultimate crisis'. 55 Josephus is not nearly as subde as Tacitus. He uses the term xupav­ voq ('tyrant') five times already in the prologue to the War, where it refers to the J u d a e a n rebel leaders, w h o pursue personal p o w e r at all costs (BJ 1 . 1 0 ­ 1 1 , 2 4 , 2 7 ­ 8 ) . Josephus continues to use the label freely throughout the War. Note BJ 4 . 2 0 8 , where he describes one of the rebels, J o h n of Gischala, in language that recalls the Catiline of Sallust's narrative: 'He was a most cunning man, w h o carried about a terrible passion for tyranny and w h o had been plotting for a long time against the state' (8oA,icbxaxo<; dvfip Kai 8eiv6v epcoxa xupavviSoq ev xfi \\rox?\ rcepupepcov, oq rcoppcoGev ercepoutaue xoiq rcpdy­ jiaaiv, BJ 4 . 2 0 8 ; cf. Sail., Cat. 5 . 4 ­ 6 : animus audax, subdolus.... lubido maxima invaserat rei publicae capiundae, Hunc... 'A bold spirit, rather cun­ ning. . . . A n enormous passion had taken over this man to control the state'). 56 In keeping with its broader theme, the Antiquitates Judaicae-Vita the tyrann-group uses extensively: of J u d a e a n , R o m a n and other leaders. Nimrod, whose overweening arrogance inspired him to construct a flood­proof tower so as not to be subject to divine direction, was the first tyrant (AJ 1.114). In the period of the Judges King Abimelech 'transformed the state into a tyranny, making himself a master who 5 4 For a nuanced treatment see Syme (1958) 4 0 8 ­ 3 4 ; cf. Mellor (1993) 8 7 ­ 1 1 2 . Otis (1967) 199. Cf. Thackeray (1929) 1 1 9 ­ 2 0 , who also notes the striking parallel between BJ 2.585 (on John's poverty as a goad) and Sail. Cat. 5.7. 5 3 5 6 580 STEVE MASON did whatever he wanted in spite of the laws' (eiq xupavvi8a xd rcpdy­ \iaia iieBiaxnai, Kiipiov auxov o xi pouA,exai rcoieiv dvxi xcov vopiuxov, AJ 5.234). W h e r e a s 1 Samuel 2 : 1 2 ­ 1 7 had accused the sons of the high priest Eli only of cultic crimes and promiscuity with the women temple attendants, Josephus describes them as men w h o robbed oth­ ers and violated women in general: 'their w a y of life was no different from tyranny' (x\)pavv(8oq 8' o\)6ev aneXeinev 6 p{oq auxcov, AJ 5.339). It is no great surprise that both Moses and Josephus are accused by their disaffected rivals of being tyrants: from the perspective of the supportive audience, of course, the accusations are ironic (AJ 4 . 1 6 , 2 2 , 1 4 6 ­ 9 ; Vit. 2 6 0 , 3 0 2 ) . 57 T h e other salient aspect of Josephus' portrait of the J u d a e a n con­ stitution is the 'succession' (8ia8o%f|) motif. Notwithstanding the Bible's omission of such language, Josephus indicates throughout his narra­ tive who succeeded w h o m in the high­priesdy headship of the J u d a e a n senate, the perpetual guardian of Moses' constitution. He also pauses half­way through the work and again in the closing paragraphs to present s u m m a r y 'succession' lists (AJ 10.151­3; 20.224­51). He opens his autobiographical appendix by showing his own place in the 'succession' (Vit. 3) and then in the sequel celebrates the accu­ rate preservation of the constitution through two thousand years of high­priesdy succession (Ap. 1.36). T o be sure, this ideal portrait is balanced by occasional notices about the interference of rulers, such as the kings Antiochus I V (AJ 12.238) and Herod the G r e a t (AJ 1 5 . 4 0 ­ 1 ; 20.247), the latter's descendants (AJ 2 0 . 1 0 3 , 203) and the J u d a e a n tyrants (BJ 4 . 1 5 1 ­ 6 1 ) in the high­priestly succession. But these concessions to real life do not prevent him from maintaining the soundness of the historic legacy. Josephus' interest in monarchical succession is particularly illumi­ nating for our question. T h a t it matters to him is confirmed by his summary remark at AJ 2 0 . 2 6 1 , that he has been careful to present 'the succession as well as the conduct of the kings' (XTIV 7iepi xoix; paoiXeiq 8ia8o%f|v xe Kai dycoynv). Because the indigenous form of government is aristocracy, however, the royal succession lists are frag­ mentary, unlike the continuous high­priesdy succession. 5 7 T h e y also It strains belief, that is to say, that in the case of Josephus he accidentally lets slip a genuine charge against him, which can then become the bedrock of schol­ arly reconstruction of his career; contra Luther (1910) 7; Laqueur (1920) 108; Shutt (1961) 6. 581 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME tend to highlight the problem of royal succession: the lengths to which monarchs must go to choose their heirs. These problems begin with David, whose son Adonijah plots unsuccessfully to succeed him (47 8 . 3 4 5 , 3 5 4 ­ 6 2 ) , and continue with Solomon, whose successor immediately forfeits the bulk of his kingdom to a contender through his oppressive measures (47 8 . 2 1 2 ­ 2 1 ) . Themadsing the issue of prob­ lematic succession, Josephus reworks the Bible to say that a child­ less and gravely ill K i n g Hezekiah aggravated his condition with the worry that 'he was about to die, having left his house and rule devoid of a legitimate succession' (\ieXXoi OIKOV K a i XTJV dp%fiv y v n a i a c ; xekemav epr||iov KocxaAiTiow xov 8ia8oxfj<;, 4 7 10­25). Again, he embell­ ishes Daniel's vision of the future to point out that the royal suc­ cessors of Alexander, 'were neither his sons nor yet his relatives' (ouxe 8e rcai8a<; auxou xouxoix; ovxaq ouxe auyyeveiq, 4 7 10.274). Josephus' concern with legitimate monarchical succession is par­ alleled in R o m a n authors. Early in the Historiae, elderly princeps Tacitus has the Galba, w h o becomes worried about his succession as soon as he takes power, adopt Licinianus Piso (Hist. 1 . 1 3 ­ 1 6 ) : he does so with a speech that explicidy recalls Augustus' programmatic difficulty in finding an heir (Hist. 1.15). Although Galba favours adop­ tion as the safest means of succession, the whole passage points up a basic flaw in concentrating p o w e r in one man: Given the certainty of the autocrat's death, what shall we do for an encore? Josephus' treatment of the theme comes to a head with Augustus' contempo­ rary K i n g Herod, whose story accounts for more than one quarter of the 1 2 1 occurrences of 'successor' (8id8o%o<;) and 'succession' (8ux­ 8o%r|) in this corpus. Herod's succession story is also the critical con­ text for interpreting the R o m a n constitutional crisis. The Roman Constitutional Crisis Virtually every commentator has taken Josephus' lengthy description of events in R o m e between Tiberius' final days and Claudius' accession as an innocent by­product of some interest other than R o m a n affairs: Josephus wanted to pad his narrative so as to reach twenty volumes in imitation of Dionysius' Antiquitates Romanaef 8 he had intrinsically interesting sources, which broadly supported his theme of divine 5 8 Thackeray (1967) 56. 582 STEVE MASON providence; 59 a n d / o r he mainly wanted to aggrandise Agrippa I, who happened to have been closely involved in Claudius' accession. 60 If Josephus included vasdy more R o m a n material than seems neces­ sary, that was only typical of his carelessness and lack of propor­ tion. So the standard views. W h e r e a s for the rest of the Antiquitates Judaicae I have tried to bring out a Rome­relevant subtext, in the case of the R o m a n material I must, paradoxically, try to show that it is fully a part of Josephus' narrative. I submit that he diverts his J u d a e a n history to R o m e for a compelling reason, beyond the rhetorical need for variety of scene. He has a sustained interest in using R o m a n political crises to illus­ trate his overriding constitutional themes for a R o m a n audience. This motive becomes clear when we consider the context of the R o m a n material, the role of the 'succession' motif in it, and the case for aristocracy made here. In context, the story of Rome's constitutional woes is organically connected with everything that goes before: most immediately the story of Agrippa I in R o m e , but also the preceding four volumes, which deal with the most famous J u d a e a n monarch: Herod. W e con­ sidered above the importance of the 'tyranny' theme in Josephus. Notice now the play between kingship and tyranny in the case of H e r o d and his son A r c h e l a u s . Before Herod becomes king, the J u d a e a n aristocrats, here 'the principal men' (oi TcpSxoi), discern that he really wishes to become a tyrant (AJ 1 4 . 1 6 5 ) . Once he becomes king, indeed, he is denounced first by the Gadarenes (AJ 15.354) and then by the J u d a e a n s (16.4) as a tyrant. After his death, creat­ ing an inclusio, the J u d a e a n 'elders' (jcpeapeiq) recall that he made the kingship into a tyranny (AJ 17.304). Naturally, his son Archelaus also desired the title of king only in order that he might behave with savagery, as a tyrant (AJ 17.237); he was later removed on precisely that charge (17.342). J u s t as Cicero had observed that Tarquinius 'made the title of king odious to our people' (nomen huic populo in odium uenisse regium, Rep. 1.40.62; cf. 2.30.52), in Josephus Herod is the embodiment of monarchy­cum­tyranny, the very 'model of oppres­ sion' (rcap&Seiyna Kcciccooecoq, AJ of the R o m a n rulers. Wiseman (1991) xii. Feldman (1965) 2 1 3 n. a. 1 7 . 3 1 0 ) . A n d his story prefaces that 583 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME Herod's tyrannical actions included all the standard items: self­ exaltation above the nation's laws, capricious handling of justice, wanton corruption of women, a n d — i n close agreement with Livy's portrait of Tarquinius Superbus (Livy 1.49.2)—execution of the nobil­ ity (£U7caxp[8ai, 'nobles') among the J u d a e a n senators (AJ 1 7 . 3 0 7 ­ 1 0 ; cf. 14.175; 1 5 . 3 ­ 4 ) . Herod would kill nobles on absurd pretexts, according to the J u d a e a n leaders quoted here, and if he let them live he would seize their property (xprijiaxa) for himself. Also like the tyrannical Tarquinius, when Herod encountered hostility among his subjects (in Jerusalem), he directed his largesse toward foreign cities (Livy 1 . 4 9 . 8 ­ 9 ; AJ 15.326­30; 16.146­490). Now this w o r d etmaxpiSrig, which Dionysius applies to the sena­ torial class in his explication of the R o m a n constitution (Ant. 2 . 7 . 1 ­ 2 ) occurs only six times in the Antiquitates Judaicae. Rom. In all of the other five cases it refers to the R o m a n nobles victimised by Tiberius and Gaius. Josephus' obituary on Tiberius notes that he had wronged these nobles (eu7iaxp{8ai) more than any other man, sentencing them to death at his personal whim (AJ 18.226). Gaius is introduced in volume 19 in much the same way: he harassed 'in particular the senate, and among this group the nobles, and any w h o enjoyed dis­ tinction because of honourable ancestry' (Kai jidAaoxa xfjv c\>yKXr\xov Kai orcoooi xouxcov e\maxp{8ai Kai rcpoyovcov ercicpaiveioix; xiuxouxvoi, AJ 1 9 . 2 ; cf. 7 5 , 1 3 2 , 136). M o r e o v e r , Gaius attacked the equestrian order because it was the base of the future senate, killing or expelling the knights and confiscating their 'property' (xpr||iaxa). W e need hardly stress that in the mid­90s CE, when Josephus published his work, Domitian himself was notorious for using informants to secure convictions in order to confiscate property (Suet. Dom. 1 2 . 1 ­ 2 ; Cass. Dio 6 8 . 1 . 1 ­ 2 ) . Thus, Josephus has apparendy written of Herod with the R o m a n monarchs in mind and vice versa; and the contempo­ rary application seems obvious. This organic connection is abundandy confirmed by Josephus' por­ trayal of the R o m a n principes as Herod­like 'tyrants' (xupavvoi). He affects not to know whether to call Tiberius a king or a tyrant (AJ 1 8 . 1 6 9 ) , but Gaius receives the label 'tyrant' more than a dozen times (e.g., AJ 1 9 . 1 8 , 7 9 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 , 155). A n ample editorial justifies this language with the claim that the ruler brooked no opposition to his fancies and took sexual deviance as far as incest ( 1 9 . 2 0 1 ­ 1 1 ) . Most interesting for our purposes are the passages in which Josephus reduces all the R o m a n principes to the status of tyrants. O n e of these 584 STEVE MASON is an editorial remark to the effect that, before R o m e had 'fallen under tyranny' (xupavvn&fjvai), the senate had commanded her armies (47 1 9 . 1 8 7 ) . T h e other is more deliberate: after Gaius' death, the senators admonish a frightened Claudius to yield to them, 'leaving to the law provision for the good order of the res publica, remem­ bering what evil the city had suffered from the earlier tyrants (oi rcpoxepoi xupavvoi) and how he had been imperilled along with them under Gaius' XTJV nokw Tcpovoiav, Kai (Kai xcp VOJLKO rcapaxcopouvxa xou nvriiioveuovxa d)v oi d)v bnb Taiov Kai ambq rcpoxepoi erci xoiq Koivoiq KOOJIOI) x u p a w o i KaKcoaeiav KivSuveuaeiev GUV auxoiq, xf^v 47 19.230). It seems that Josephus, like Aristode, Polybius and Tacitus, views tyranny as the almost inevitable concomitant of monarchy, therefore to be expected in all R o m a n autocrats. Like every tyrant and R o m a n princeps, Josephus' Herod faced the fundamental problem of succession, even though he had m a n y sons. O n e of the more prominent threads in Josephus' Herod story is the king's difficulty in naming an heir from among his tyrannical offspring: intrigues and murders abound (e.g., 4 7 1 6 . 1 3 3 ­ 5 ; 1 7 . 5 2 ­ 3 , 146­8). After his death, with a glorious irony for his Roman audience, Herod's succession problem is referred to Augustus in R o m e (47 1 7 . 3 0 4 ­ 2 0 ) , the princeps legendary. whose own succession problems had meanwhile become 61 Given this context and Josephus' demonstrable interest in succes­ sion, it can hardly be mere coincidence that he opens the story of Rome's crisis with a comical sketch of Tiberius' succession woes as the monarch's death approaches (47 1 8 . 2 0 5 ­ 2 7 ) . In this version, 62 Tiberius very much wants his own grandson Gemellus to succeed him, but feels that he must leave such an important decision to the gods (47 1 8 . 2 1 1 ) — n o doubt an allusion to his superstitious nature. A n d yet he does not quite trust the gods either. S o he first estab­ lishes a criterion of divine favour, committing himself to make an heir of the first young man to greet him on the next morning, but then tries to bias the die by instructing Gemellus' tutor to bring the preferred candidate at sunrise (AJ 1 8 . 2 1 2 ) . T o his great distress, how­ ever, Gaius turns out to be the one w h o first greets him the next day and so necessarily receives the inheritance of imperium. The classic study is Syme (1939) 4 1 8 ­ 3 9 . Contrast the details in Suet. Tib. 62; Tac. Ann. 6.46. Tiberius 585 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME dies angry and frustrated that he has thus forfeited his control over the succession—or, grudgingly recognising (xou Geiou xfjc; e^ouotocq; AJ 'the p o w e r of the deity' 18.214). This story of succession leaves a sympathetic audience with at least two clear morals. First, in the case of supreme monarchs the suc­ cession process is absurd: at best, the government of the civilised world is left to utterly whimsical human choices, which G o d fre­ quendy undoes in order to make a point. Second, Tiberius himself is allowed to reflect fulsomely on the dangers of concentrating supreme p o w e r in one person: he foresees that Gaius will have Gemellus removed, yet nevertheless admonishes him to keep the relative alive for two reasons. O n the one hand, it will be dangerous for Gaius if he isolates (|iovcooei<;) himself as supreme ruler. O n the other hand, Tiberius knows that the gods will punish those w h o behave contrary to the laws (AJ 1 9 . 2 2 2 ­ 3 ) ! O n e cannot but find in such remarks Josephus' consistent perspectives, here ironically conveyed, on monar­ chy and aristocracy. Finally, Josephus uses the R o m a n narrative of the Antiquitates Judaicae to make yet another case for aristocracy, now coupled with a fairly direct indictment of R o m a n monarchy. W e see this most clearly in the speech of the consul G n a e u s Sentius Saturninus after Gaius' death (AJ 1 9 . 1 6 7 ­ 8 4 ) . Although he does not use the w o r d dpioxoicpa­ xia, Sentius urges his colleagues in the senate to preserve their new­ found 'dignity of freedom' (xou eA,ou0epo\) xf^v d^icooiv, 19.167), 'possessing which is happiness' (eu8ai|iov{oc ouvdyouaav, 1 9 . 1 6 7 ) . It was freedom and attendant 'virtue' (dpexr|) that characterised 'the laws under which [Rome] formerly flourished when it lived by reg­ ulating itself (vojicov, oiq rcoxe fiv&noe, 8iaixco|xevTi PicoGeiaa, 1 9 . 1 6 8 ) , namely, in the republican period. In contrast to these glorious days of freedom past known from tradition, Sentius has seen with his own eyes 'with w h a t evils tyrannies pollute constitutions (oicov noXueiac; KOCKCOV xaq dvauAjurcAixoiv, 1 9 . 1 7 2 ) . According to Sentius, Iulius C a e s a r became the first tyrant: 8iapaad|xevoq xov Koajiov xcov vojxcov xfjv noXmiav avvexdpa^EV, Kpeiaacov uev xo\) SIKOUOO) yevouevoq, riaocov 8e xov KCCX' i8(av f|8ovr|v avxcp Kojiiovvxoq. (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 19.173) He threw the constitution into chaos by churning up the proper order of the laws. Whereas he had made himself mightier than justice, he was actually in thrall to that which served his private pleasure. 586 STEVE MASON T h e n Josephus does not flinch from having Sentius connect Caesar with the J u l i o ­ C l a u d i a n emperors as a group: . . . (piA,OTi|ir)0evTtovrcpoqaXXr\Xox>(; drcdvxov, oi eKeivcp 8td8oxot xfjq dpxrjq KcxxeoTTjGcxv, in dcpaviGjicp xo\) rcaypiou Kai cb<; av udAaaxa xcov rcoAaxcov eprjuCav xov yevvafcru Kaxa^eircoiev. (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 19.174) . . . all of them competing with one another, those who established themselves as his successors in the principate set on the disappearance of our heritage and with the definite purpose that they might leave in their wake a devastation of our citizens' nobility. Although Sentius' elite audience has become accustomed to think­ ing like prisoners, he says, the consul ironically invites them even to disagree with him about this issue of freedom ( 1 9 . 1 7 8 ) because, without a 'master' (8eo7t6xr|<;) watching them now, with 'absolute p o w e r to remove those w h o have spoken' (auxoKpdxopi |xexaaxf|aaa­ 0ai xoix; eipriKoxaq), such disagreement is welcome ( 1 9 . 1 7 9 ) . He con­ cludes with the coup-de-maitre, invoking the example of Brutus and Cassius ( 1 9 . 1 8 2 ­ 4 ) , while recommending honours for Gaius' assassins, w h o have now outstripped those men in an act of tyrant­slaying (xupavvoKxovia, 19.184). This verdict against the Julio­Claudian dynasty as a whole is even stronger than Tacitus' celebration of the new freedom after Domitian (Agr. 2 ­ 3 ) — a n d with the crucial difference that Josephus wrote while Domitian was in power. Several features confirm Josephus' profound authorial investment in this speech. First, the part of the speech above that connects Iulius Caesar and tyranny contains m a n y verbal parallels with Josephus' earlier narrative. Earlier in the Antiquitates Judaicae he characterises the rebellious Israelites at the time of the Judges thus (correspon­ dence emphasised): . . . |iexaKivTi0evx£<; yap arca£ xot> KOGUOD xfk noXixeiac. ecpepovxo Ttpoc xo Ka0' fiSovfrv Kai pottAno'tv i8(av ptovv, cbq Kai xcov e7uxcopia£6vxcov rcapd xoiq Xavavaioiq dva7uu7tA,aG0ai KaKcov. (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 5.179) . . . once they had been drawn away from the proper order of the constitution, they were carried away into living for pleasure and personal whim, with the result that they were polluted with the vices that were habitual among the Canaanites. Again Josephus introduces the speech as one that befits 'free' (eX£u0epoi) and noble m e n — n o longer slaves under tyranny (AJ 1 9 . 1 6 6 ) — a n d FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN 587 ROME Sentius' opening remark is that the possession o f 'freedom' (TO etauGe­ pov) is 'happiness' (euScujiovm, 1 9 . 1 6 7 ) . This language recalls other Josephan passages. Moses tells the Israelites that G o d has given them 'freedom' (etauGepia) and 'possession of a happy land' (ynq K i f | a w eu8ai|iovo<;, AJ 3.300). V o l u m e 1 8 opens with the anti­Roman rebel J u d a s the Gaulanite trying to reclaim that promise, for recovering 'freedom' (e^euGepia) would 'lay the foundation of happiness' (TO £u8ou|iov dvaKei|ievr|q Tfjq KTr|aeco<;, AJ 18.5). Similarly, the speech of Sentius recalls various key­word conjunctions from the prologue to Antiquitates Judaicae: 1 9 . 1 6 7 ­ 8 ; cf. cf. 1 . 2 0 ­ 1 ) . 6 3 'virtue' (dp£rr|) and 'happiness' (e\)8ai|Liov{a, AJ 1.20), and 'lesson' (TO 7cai8eujaa) and 'virtue' (dp£Tr|); Sentius also uses Josephus' key word 'constitution' xeia) no fewer than three times (AJ (nok\- 1 9 . 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 , 178), in the last case making an explicit comparison, as Josephus does elsewhere: 'of all constitutions' (aixcep rcoAaTeicov), he says, the one in which the sen­ ators are responsible only to one other 'best guarantees present good will and future safety from plots' (exeyyucoTaTai rcpoq xe xb rcapov eiWouv K a i TO auGiq dvejuPoutauTov, AJ 19.178). This reflects Josephus' consistent appeal for the superiority of senatorial aristocracy. It m a y seem strange that the consul describes the liberty of the senate as 'democracy' (8r|noKpaT{a, AJ 1 9 . 1 7 3 ) , a usage confirmed in the surrounding narrative ( 1 9 . 1 6 2 , 187). But this too matches Josephus' language elsewhere. W e should note first that, according to the much briefer parallel passage in the Bellum Judaicum (2.204), the senate wished either to restore the aristokratia under which they had lived in bygone years or to choose a worthy princeps for themselves. This Josephan parallel and the immediate context in the Antiquitates Judaicae indicate that 'democracy' is used here as a w a y of describing aris­ tocracy. J u s t as Polybius observed that R o m a n republican govern­ ment could be described as monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, depending upon the observer's focus (Polyb. 6 . 1 1 . 1 2 ) , so too Josephus can describe his beloved priestly aristocracy as 'democratic' (8r||ioK­ p a T i a , 8n.|LioKpaTiK6<;, BJ 4 . 3 1 9 , 3 5 8 ; AJ 20.234). 6 4 Athenian­style democracy does not enter the picture: he seems to have in mind an aristocracy that represents the true welfare of the people—over against the atrocities of the tyrants during the war. (i3 These account for two of only five occurrences of 'lesson' (7iai8e\)ua) in Josephus. Others attribute Josephus' differences of language to discrete sources: Attridge (1984) 227 n. 66; Schwartz (1983­84) 30 52. See also the discussion in Feldman (1998) 145 n. 7. (>4 588 STEVE MASON In this passage on R o m a n affairs, similarly, only two options ap­ pear: tyranny and democracy. T h e R o m a n soldiers choose to spon­ sor Claudius because the only alternative they know is an impractical 'democracy' (8r||ioKpaxia, AJ 1 9 . 1 6 2 ) . T h e y clarify in another place: they did not like the rapacity demonstrated by senators when those men had held 'power' (otpxfi) before (AJ 19.224). By SruioKpcma, fur­ ther, Josephus indicates the constitution that was destroyed by Iulius Caesar (AJ 1 9 . 1 7 3 ) and the system under which the senate controlled Rome's armies ( 1 9 . 1 8 7 ) . According to AJ 1 9 . 2 2 8 , the only choice the 'people' (8f||io<;) have is whether the senate or a princeps will best represent their interests. T h e y choose the monarch as a check on the senate's power. A n d again, the senators insist that if Claudius chooses to assume the principate, he must at least receive it as a gift from the senate (AJ 19.235). T h e 'democracy' in view here, then, is the complex republican balance: popular voting assemblies, to be sure, but with senatorial magistrates overseeing public affairs. 65 I leave out of this analysis the most obvious indicators of Josephus' control over the R o m a n narrative, which are the regular editorial asides in which he pointedly connects the story to his larger aims (AJ 1 8 . 2 6 0 , 2 8 4 , 2 8 6 , 2 8 8 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 ­ 7 ; 1 9 . 1 5 ­ 1 6 , 6 1 , 6 8 ­ 9 , 1 0 6 ­ 8 , 1 5 5 ­ 6 , 1 9 6 ­ 8 , 2 0 1 ­ 1 1 ) . A t least some of these are commonly excised as mere seams imposed on essentially alien m a t e r i a l . 66 Even without these asides and short speeches, the R o m a n material is clearly well managed by Josephus for his purposes. It meshes tighdy with the paramount themes of the Antiquitates Judaicae. Conclusions W e set out to define the shape and content of Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae-Vita—what was on the lines—and its likely meaning for an audience in Domitian's Rome: what was between the lines. As to the former, I have argued that the entire work, including volumes 1 8 ­ 2 0 and the Vita, develops its themes in a coherent way. Josephus wrote a primer in J u d a e a n history and culture, paying special atten­ 6 5 Wiseman (1991) 74 notes that the description of republican government as 'democratic' will become common in Appian and Dio. Wiseman (1991) xiii. 6 6 589 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS IN FLAVIAN ROME tion to the nation's extremely ancient constitution. He took a strong position against monarchy, favouring hereditary priestly­senatorial governance of the always restive masses. Sentius' oration is replete with the most basic themes of the Antiquitates Judaicae; the concen­ tric structure of the book highlights these even more; and Josephus concludes both the Antiquitates Judaicae and the Contra Apionem with further reference to constitutional issues. As for what sits between the lines: we know that Josephus wrote in Domitian's R o m e , at about the time when the princeps was getting rid of nobles w h o had hinted criticisms of his monarchical rule, also of some w h o stood accused of Judaising. Josephus drew tacit paral­ lels between J u d a e a n and R o m a n history at numerous points and levels: his scornful references to Greek ways, rhetorical historiogra­ phy and intersections of narrative detail with famous R o m a n accounts. Explicidy, he included a lengthy discussion of the R o m a n constitutional issues from Tiberius' succession problem to the grizzly m u r d e r of the bad seed Gaius Caligula and the accession of the pathetic Claudius. Josephus set the entire work in the framework of outsiders' interest in J u d a e a n culture. These conclusions appear beyond dispute. A t this point, we are left with a fairly stark choice. Either Josephus' many points of intersection with R o m a n political life are merely coin­ cidental or he made them with intent. Surprisingly, to the uninitiated, scholarship has all but exclusively favoured an accidental, source­ driven explanation of the R o m a n material, as of much else in J o s e ­ phus. Y e t we have seen that the evidence favours Josephus' intelligent control. W e have litde choice, it seems to me, but to conclude that he wished not only to praise the J u d a e a n constitution before his inquisitive R o m a n audience, but also to comment on R o m a n affairs— as direcdy as any writer would dare at this point in Domitian's reign.