Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
(BJ 6.350)
Those who discard their weapons and surrender their persons, I will let live. Like a lenient master in a household, I will punish the incorrigible but preserve the rest for myself.
So ends Titus' address to the embattled defenders of Jerusalem in the sixth book of Josephus' Jewish War (6.328-50). It is the most substantial instance of communication between Romans and Jews in the work. Titus compares himself to the master of a household and the Jewish rebels to his slaves. Is this how we expect a Roman to describe empire? If not, what does it mean for our understanding of the politics of Josephus' history? The question is particularly acute given that this is not just any Roman but Titus himself: heir apparent and, if we believe Josephus, the man who read and approved this historical account. It is thus surprising that, while the speeches of Jewish advocates of submission to Rome such as Agrippa II (2.345-401) and Josephus himself (5.362-419) have long fascinated readers, Titus' speech has received little or no attention. Remarkably, it is not mentioned in any of three recent collections of essays on Josephus. This paper aims to highlight the rhetorical choices that Josephus has made in constructing this voice for Titus—particularly his self-presentation as master—and the interpretive questions these raise for his readers. It should go without saying that the relationship of this text to anything that Titus may have said during the siege is highly problematic. (Potentially more significant, but unfortunately no less speculative, is the question of how it might relate to any speech recorded in the commentaries of Vespasian and Titus that Josephus appears to have used as a source.) What we have is a Josephan composition that is embedded in the broader narrative of the Jewish War.
All references are to the Jewish War unless otherwise specified. I am grateful to the other participants of the Craven seminar for sharing their insights into Josephus. Special thanks are due to William Fitzgerald, Mary Beard, Marden Nichols, Simon Goldhill, Helen Morales and Nick Dodd for their helpful comments on this paper at various stages.
1. The vast majority of the speeches of the Jewish War are delivered by Jews to Jews or Romans to Romans. The few other exceptions are much shorter than Titus’ speech: 1.388–92, 2.193–94, 3.400–02,4.93–96 and 6.124–28.
2. Vit. 363, Ap. 1.50.
3. Rodgers, Z. (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden 2007Google Scholar); Sievers, J. and Lembi, G. (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 104 (Leiden 2005Google Scholar); Edmondson, J., Mason, S. and Rives, J. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Equally surprising is its absence from studies of Josephus’ characterisation of Titus: J.S. McLaren, ‘Josephus on Titus: The Vanquished Writing About the Victor’, in Sievers and Lembi, op. cit., 279–95; Paul, G.M., ‘The Presentation of Titus in the Jewish War of Josephus: Two Aspects’, Phoenix 47 (1993), 56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yavetz, Z., ‘Reflections on Titus and Josephus’, GRBS 16 (1975), 411–32.Google Scholar
4. Vit. 358, Ap. 1.56.
5. See especially S. Mason, ‘Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience’, in Sievers and Lembi (n.3 above), 71–100; J.J. Price, ‘The Provincial Historian in Rome’, ibid. 101–18; H.M. Cotton and W. Eck, ‘Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites’, in Mason and Rives (n.3 above), 37–52; G.W. Bowersock, ‘Foreign Elites at Rome’, ibid. 53–62; T. Rajak, ‘Josephus in the Diaspora’, ibid. 79–97; Mader, G., Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum (Leiden 2000), 152–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sterling, G. E., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden 1992), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Mason (n.5 above).
7. Ap. 1.50–52, Vit. 361–62.
8. For the medical metaphor (
, 6.337) see Goodwin, W.W., Demosthenes: On the Crown (Cambridge 1901Google Scholar) on Dem. De Cor. 198 (where Aeschines is like an old wound that flares up whenever Athens is in trouble), which Josephus is probably imitating here.
9. Simon: 4.272–82; Eleazer: 7.323–36, 341–88.
10. See 2.118, 2.264, 2.443, 3.357, 4.228, 4.272, 5.321, 5.458, 7.323. The motivation of the Batavian revolt of 69–70 CE is articulated in the same terms at 7.78.
11. Ananus: 4.163–92; Jesus: 4.238–69, on which see Mader (n.5 above), 83–87 and 92–98 respectively.
12. On this speech, see Rajak, T., ‘Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa II’s Speech in Josephus’s Jewish War’, in L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 122 (Sheffield 1991), 122–34Google Scholar; Villalba i Varneda, P., The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden 1986), 92–95Google Scholar; Gabba, E., ‘L’impero Romano nel discorso di Agrippa II’, RSA 6–7 (1976–77), 189–94Google Scholar; Lindner, H., Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden 1972), 21–25.Google Scholar
13. For the weaker sense of άγαπάω (‘tolerate, put up with’) see the examples in LSJ s.v. III.4.
14. Discussed by Villalba i Varneda (n.12 above), 95–97, and Lindner (n.12 above), 25–33.
15. The two verbs have caused some confusion for the text of the Jewish War. At 5.366, both δυσθαvατoύvτωv and δυσθαvατώvτωv are attested in the manuscript tradition. Thackeray’s Loeb prints δυσθαvατoύvτωv but translates it as if it were δυσθαvατώvτωv (‘longing for death’). Problems also arise at 4.27 (describing the last Romans to die in the defeat at Gamala). The manuscript tradition again preserves both δυσθαvατoύvτωv and δυσθαvατώvτωv. This time Thackeray print the latter but translatessas it as if it were the former (‘struggling against death’). Ultimately the distinction will not bear too much pressure. δυσθαvατέω is widely attested in the sense of putting up a fight against death or dying slowly and painfully. Cf. Jos. BJ 5.515 and 6.90 and, e.g., Plut. Pyrrh. 29.4, Luc. 18.5, Eum. 7 A, Cat. Min. 70.5 and Ant. 7.2 (on the dying contortions and agonies of various unfortunates). δυσθαvατάω is much rarer. In many of the attested instances it appears indistinguishable from δυσθαvατέω. Cf. Chrys. Stoic. 3.50 (describing an old woman just hanging on against death). The best authority for a distinctive sense (‘long for death’) is Titus’ speech at Jos. BJ 6.350, but there it could conceivably be translated as ‘die hard’. For my purposes the issue is moot: both senses convey the idea of a doomed struggle.
16. On the status and power of imperial slaves, see Bradley, K.R., Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge 1994), 69fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hezser, C., Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford 2005), 100–04CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the similar situation of the patriarchs’ slaves in Jewish culture.
17. S. Mason, ‘Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus’, in Mason and Rives (n.3 above), 243–88, at 271.
18. Rajak (n.12 above), esp. 132.
19. Various aspects of the rhetoric of freedom and slavery in the BJ are discussed by Mader (n.5 above), 83–87 and 92–100, and by Byron, J., Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-Historical and Exegetical Examination, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum neuen Testament 2. Reihe 162 (Tübingen 2003), 81–95Google Scholar. It is telling that Mader, who is interested in Josephus’ use of a Thucydidean model, discusses the speeches of Ananus and Jesus, which contradict the rebel claim that Rome’s subjects are her slaves (as a reader of Thucydides would expect) but not those of Agrippa, Josephus or Titus which embrace it.
20. See Hezser (n.16 above) for a recent synthesis of the evidence for slavery in Jewish culture in the classical period, arguing for considerable continuity with practices of slavery in the broader Greco-Roman world. The rhetoric of the Josephan speeches raises broader questions about how slavery was used to think about other power relations in Roman culture and how Roman rule was represented to Rome’s provincial subjects. These are discussed in detail in my forthcoming Cambridge doctoral dissertation (Rome and the Provinces: Slavery, Patronage and Other Paradigms for Empire).
21. See Mader (n.5 above) and Eckstein, A.M., ‘Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration’, ClAnt 9 (1990), 175–208Google Scholar, on Josephus’ use of Thucydides and Polybius respectively.
22. Raaflaub, K., The Discovery of Freedom (Chicago 2004; orig. publ. Munich 1985 as Die Entdeckung der Freiheit), 129.Google Scholar Raaflaub offers the best discussion of empire and slavery in Thucydides (see 120–30).
23. Phrynichus addressing an Athenian council of war at 8.48.5.
24. Melians describe Athens’ subjects as slaves: Thuc. 5. 86, 92, 100. Athenians prefer ὑπήκooι: 91.1, άρχóμεvoι: 91.1, 95. Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K.J. (eds.), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides Vol IV (Oxford 1970), 163f.Google Scholar, argue that the Athenians assimilate the relationship between an imperial power and its subjects to that of a master and slave. Low, P., ‘Looking for the Language of Athenian Imperialism’, JHS 125 (2005), 93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 94, describes the Athenians as speaking to ‘prospective slaves in the imperial machine’. But it is nevertheless significant that the Athenians avoid making the comparison explicit.
25. See e.g. the speech of Philopoemen (Pol. 24.13).
26. Indeed, Josephus’ Titus hardly ever describes the Jews as slaves in his speeches to Roman audiences. The language of slavery features only once (6.42) in Titus’ four speeches to his troops (3.472–84, 3.494–96, 6.33–53 and 7.6–12). It does not occur at all in Vespasian’s two speeches to Roman audiences (4.40–48 and 4.368–76).
27. Gabba (n.12 above); Eckstein (n.21 above).
28. On the ‘slave of God’ motif see esp. Zimmerli, W. and Jeremias, J., ‘
’, in G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids 1964–76), v.654–717Google Scholar; Hezser (n.16 above), 327–32, on the Hebrew Bible; Byron (n.19 above) on the Septuagint and Hellenistic texts. Mediated by Paul, this Jewish trope develops into the Christian servus Christi. See Martin, D.B., Slavery and Salvation (New Haven 1990Google Scholar); Byron (n.19 above); Combes, I.A.H., The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church: From the New Testament to the Beginning of the Fifth Century, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 156 (Sheffield 1998).Google Scholar
29. AJ 11.90 and 101. See Gibbs, J.G. and Feldman, L.H., ‘Josephus’ Vocabulary of Slavery’, Jewish Quarterly Review 76 (1986), 306–08Google Scholar, for other examples of the language of slavery applied to a religious context.
30. See esp. Marti, B.M., ‘Proskynesis and Adorare’, Language (1936), 272–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, correcting Bolkestein, H., Theophrastos’ Charakter der Deisidaimonia als religionsgeschichtliche Urkunde, Religiongeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeitung 21.2 (Giessen 1929).Google Scholar
31. Greek responses to Persian proskynesis include Xen. Anab. 3.2.13, Isoc. Pan. 151, Arist. Rhet. 1367a27, Arr. Anab. 4.9.9–12.5. For the Persian practice, see Frye, R.N., ‘Gestures of Deference to Royalty in Ancient Iran’, IA 9 (1972), 102–07Google Scholar, and Brunt, P.A., Arrian (Cambridge MA & London 1976), i.538f.Google Scholar
32. In Herodotus, Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, 
is only ever used of the worship of gods or of self-abasement before individuals, never for the relationship of one people to another. It does not occur at all in Thucydides or Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
33. Artabanus in 37 CE (Suet. Gaius 14.3. Vit. 2.4), Zorsines in 49 (Tac. Ann. 12.17.2), unnamed German kings under Nero (ILS 986). On the legionary standards and the imperial portraits they bore, see Ando, C., Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley 2000), 259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The adoption of proskynesis (adoratio) into imperial ceremonial comes later. See Alföldi, A., ‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe’, MDAI(R) 49(1934), 1–118.Google Scholar
34. For the famous story see Plut. Al. 54, Arr. Anab. 4.9.9–12.5, Curt. 8.5.6–24, etc.
35. Josephus might also be seen as anticipating the Second Sophistic trope of describing Rome as a new Persian empire, discussed by Swain, S.C.R., Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World (Oxford 1996), 176f.Google Scholar, and Bowie, E.L., ‘The Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic’ in M. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London 1974), 166–209Google Scholar (= P&P 46 [1970], 3–41), at 201 n.95.
36. It occurs 124 times in the Septuagint, 37 times in Philo and 76 times in Josephus himself— almost exclusively of worshipping God.
37. See 1.73, 2.341, 2.414, 2.444,4.262, 5.99, 5.381.
38. The question of the interaction between models of divine and temporal authority has also been raised recently by Tessa Rajak, who compares the angry tyrant and the angry God. See Rajak, T., ‘The Angry Tyrant’, in T. Rajak and S. Pearce (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley 2007), 110–27Google Scholar, at 116f.
39. Mader (n.5 above), 12–17 and 28 n.20, discusses how Josephus collapses the Zealot objection to enslavement into a purely political sentiment. But Josephus does allude to its theological aspect (the incompatibility of slavery to Rome with slavery to God) on two occasions: 2.118 and 7.323. On the Zealots’ theology, see Hadas-Lebel, M., Jerusalem Against Rome (Leuven 2006; orig. publ. Paris 1990 as Jérusalem contre Rome ), 439ff.Google Scholar; Byron (n. 19 above), 82–95.
