| <head>II.<hi rend="italic">Exegesis of the Prologue to War</hi></head><p>The preface to<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>is at once thoroughly conventional and strikingly original. It is conventional inasmuch as it furnishes examples of most of the<span class="greek">τόποι</span>that had come to be associated with historical prefaces since the time of Thucydides.<note id="p2_c3_n38" place="foot">A handy collection of Greek and Hellenistic historical prefaces is provided, in translation, by A. Toynbee,<hi rend="italic">Greek Historical Thought</hi>(New York: New American Library, 1952 [1924]), 29-97.</note>In keeping with the dual purpose of the preface— to inform and to arouse interest—commonplace remarks on such themes as the following had become standard:<note id="p2_c3_n39" place="foot">Cf. especially the prologues of Thucydides, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Herodian; also Earl, "Prologue-form", 842-845. Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien, passim</hi>, discusses the development of the prologue-form through the Greco-Roman period.</note>the subject and its importance<pb n="63" />(cf.<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:1, 4-5); the author's credentials (1:3); reasons for and circumstances of writing (1:2, 6);<note id="p2_c3_n40" place="foot">Cf. Dio Cassius 5.72.23.</note>the inadequacy of previous treatments of the subject (1:2, 7-8);<note id="p2_c3_n41" place="foot">Cf. Dionysius 1:3-6; Herodian 1.1.1.</note>the causes of the events in question (1:10); the author's strenuous efforts at accuracy (1:15-16):<note id="p2_c3_n42" place="foot">Cf. Diodorus 1:4 and Dionysius,<hi rend="italic">Rom. Ant</hi>. 1:8.</note>his utter impartiality and concern for truth (1:2, 6, 9, 16, 30);<note id="p2_c3_n43" place="foot">Cf. Thucydides 1:21; Lucian,<hi rend="italic">History</hi>38-39.</note>his historiographical outlook (1:13-16?);<note id="p2_c3_n44" place="foot">Cf. Polybius 9:2; Diodorus 1:4; Dionysius,<hi rend="italic">Rom.Ant</hi>. 1:7-8; Arrian 1.1-3. I shall argue, however, that<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:13-16 does not really reflect Josephus's historiography.</note>and an outline of the work's contents (1:17-30). These conventional notices account for practically the whole of the preface to<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>.</p><p>Adherence to convention, however, does not automatically preclude significance. D. Earl aptly comments:</p><p><q>Beginnings are a problem. The first paragraph is difficult; the first sentence frequently impossible. Tradition and style may help. To the Greeks, who tended to stylize everything, this appeared the solution.<note id="p2_c3_n45" place="foot">Earl, "Prologue-form", 842.</note></q></p><p>Just as the<span class="greek">τόποι</span>of the modern scholarly preface (e.g., circumstances of writing, acknowledgements) do not suggest a perfunctory attitude on the author's part, the standardization of the Greek historical prologue served not to stifle creativity but to facilitate the introduction of the subject. The challenge facing the historian was to preserve the conventions, which had been canonized by the masters and elaborated by rhetorical theory,<note id="p2_c3_n46" place="foot">For the pervasiveness of rhetorical influence on Hellenistic historical writing, cf. Norden,<hi rend="italic">Kunstprosa</hi>, I, 81; Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 5, 17, 20; F. Halbfas,<hi rend="italic">Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtsschreibung bei Dionysius von Halicarnassus</hi>(Münster: Westfälische Vereinsdrückerei, 1910), 7-10; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift , 167.</note>while at the same time fashioning a unique and compelling prologue, determined by the subject at hand.<note id="p2_c3_n47" place="foot">Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 13.</note></p><head><hi rend="italic">War 1:1-8</hi></head><p>Judged by this standard, the prologue to<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>is a success: Josephus has crafted an engaging invitation to his subject. Within the first sentence he delivers the core of his argument, the conclusion of which is that he ought to write an account in Greek of the Jewish war against the Romans (1:3). This conclusion is supported by three premises and each of these is, in turn, the conclusion of a subordinate argument. The three premises are as follows.</p><pb n="64" /><p>1. The Jewish-Roman war is an important subject for Greek-speaking readers (1:1, 4-6, 8). It is important because: (a) it placed the eastern empire in jeopardy (1:4-5); (b) it required large numbers of forces on both sides, along with extreme effort and considerable time (1:8); and (c) it is unseemly that the remotest non-Hellenes should have been accurately (<span class="greek">άϰριβῶς</span>) informed about the war, thanks to an earlier work by Josephus, while the Greeks remain in ignorance (1:6).</p><p>2. Previous accounts of the war are totally lacking in historical accuracy (<span class="greek">τò άϰριβές τής ίστορίας</span>, 1:2).<note id="p2_c3_n48" place="foot">Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, Josephus's statements presuppose at least two previous accounts of the war. Like his Aramaic account, they must have appeared shortly after the war's end. This circumstance takes the force out of Thackeray's proposal that the speed with which the Aramaic version was dispatched reflected its urgent official purpose.</note>(a) Some were written by authors who lacked first-hand knowledge and had, therefore, to rely on poor sources and on their own rhetorical skills (1:1). (b) Other authors were indeed eyewitnesses, but they falsified (<span class="greek">ϰαταψεύδονται</span>) their accounts, out of either flattery of the Romans or hatred of the Jews (1:2), which means that the Jews always appeared in a bad light (1:7-8). Josephus reprises this theme at the end of 1:6, where he allows that the Greeks and Romans should not be left with flattering (<span class="greek">ϰολαϰείαις</span>) or fictitious (<span class="greek">πλάσμασι</span>) accounts of such an important event.</p><p>3. Josephus is in a unique position to make good the deficiency, that is, to provide a complete and accurate (<span class="greek">μετ' άϰριβείας</span>, 1:9) account of the war (1:6, 9). His credentials are: (a) that he is a Jerusalemite priest, a living specimen of the exotic nation in question; (b) that he personally fought against the Romans; and (c) that, by force of circumstance, he has been in a position to observe the Roman side as well (1:3).</p><p>From the first sentence of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>(= 1:1-6), then, the reader learns that the subject is important, that previous treatments in Greek are misleading, and that Josephus will exploit his uniquely informed position to provide the requisite accuracy. Indeed, these arguments all appear within the first division of the sentence (1:1-3). §§ 4-5 is a parenthetical elaboration of the war's importance and § 6 summarizes the whole. §§ 7-8 elaborate on the ineptitude of the war's previous chroniclers.</p><head><hi rend="italic">War 1:9-12</hi></head><p>With § 9 Josephus narrows the focus from a general conspectus of his subject and its importance to the specific purposes and themes of his work. Thus the paragraph §§ 9-12 constitutes something like a "thesis<pb n="65" />statement" for<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>. In a smooth transition from §§ 7-8, he begins by disavowing any intention to imitate the Roman chauvinist historians by exaggerating the feats of his countrymen. Rather, his sole aim will be to portray both sides with accuracy (<span class="greek">μετ' άϰριβείας</span>, 1:9).</p><p>At this point, however, Josephus runs into some difficulty. He has set for himself a high standard of<span class="greek">άλήθεια</span>and<span class="greek">άϰρίβεια</span>, over against the treatments of his Roman contemporaries. Yet he declares that he plans to add his own commentary to the events (<span class="greek">έπί τοῖς πράγμασι τούς λόγονς ἀνατίθημι</span>) and to allow his own feelings rein to lament his country's misfortune (<span class="greek">τοῖς ἐμεανιοῡ πάθεσι διδούς ἐπολοφύρεσθαι ταῖς τῆς πατρίδος σνμφοραῖς</span>). His basis for lament—and this is the<hi rend="italic">Leitmotif</hi>of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>—is that it was domestic troublemakers (<span class="greek">οί Ἰονδαίων τύραννοι</span>) and no foreign army that brought the downfall of Jerusalem (1:10-12). Josephus is aware that the claboration of strong personal feelings may be considered inappropriate to the<span class="greek">ἀϰρίβεια</span>of history: he predicts that someone (<span class="greek">τις</span>) might take him to task (<span class="greek">συϰοφαυτοίη</span>) and he even admits that such self-expression contravenes the "law of history" (<span class="greek">τòν τῆς ίστορίας νὀμον</span>, 1:11).</p><p>This law of history merits further attention. Cicero declares that the first two laws (<hi rend="italic">leges</hi>) of history are that one must dare to speak only the truth (<hi rend="italic">ne quid falsi dicere audeat</hi>) and one must dare to speak the whole truth (<hi rend="italic">ne quid veri non audent</hi>); there is to be no hint of partiality (<hi rend="italic">gratiae</hi>) or of malice (<hi rend="italic">simulatis</hi>).<note id="p2_c3_n49" place="foot">Cicero,<hi rend="italic">On the Orator</hi>1:62.</note>He allows that the<hi rend="italic">leges</hi>of poetry and history are different, since the latter is judged only by the standard of truth (<hi rend="italic">ad veritatem</hi>).<note id="p2_c3_n50" place="foot">Cicero,<hi rend="italic">Laws</hi>1:5.</note>Some decades after Josephus, Lucian echoed these high standards: the historian must write as if he were a stranger to all countries, without pity (<span class="greek">ἐλεῶυ</span>), shame (<span class="greek">αίσχυόμευος</span>), or special pleading (<span class="greek">δυσωπούμευος</span>). This principle of impassiveness, says Lucian, Thucydides long ago enshrined as a law (<span class="greek">ἐυομοθέτησευ</span>).<note id="p2_c3_n51" place="foot">Lucian,<hi rend="italic">History</hi>41. The value of this treatise for understanding Hellenistic historiography has been significantly increased by Avenarius's study of the work. He shows ( Lukians Schrift , 165-178) that practically every one of its assertions reflects a commonplace of that historical tradition. We may, therefore, view the work not as an idiosyncratic production of the mid-second century but as a repository of Hellenistic insight into historical method, which had its roots in Thucydides and Polybius. Since Lucian's work is the only thing resembling a manual of historical method that has come down from antiquity, the service that Avenarius has performed is immense.</note>Evidently, then, the law of history was often considered to exclude any personal feelings. As Avenarius remarks, "Zu einer objektiven Wahrheitsfindung gehört . . . die Ausschaltung persönlicher Gefühle."<note id="p2_c3_n52" place="foot">Avenarius, Lukians Schrift , 41.</note></p><pb n="66" /><p>Josephus reveals his familiarity with this ideal of objectivity both in the prologue passage under discussion and again in 5:19-20. Having described there the desperate plight of Jerusalem under various rebel factions, and having addressed an impassioned lament to the city in the second person (5:19), he immediately recants:</p><p><q>By the law of history, however, one has to restrain even one's emotions (<span class="greek">ϰαθεϰτέον γάρ ϰαί τά πάθη τῷ νόμώ τῆς σνγγραφῆς</span>) as this is not the occasion for personal lamentations (<span class="greek">ὀλοφνρῶν οἰϰείων</span>) but for a narrative of events.<note id="p2_c3_n53" place="foot">Josephus may be making a similar point in 7:274.</note></q></p><p>This apology is hardly convincing, since he has already declared (in the preface) his intention to give his<span class="greek">πάθη</span>free rein; he will later indulge in lament without regret. The confession does, however, confirm that he was aware of a principle of objectivity that excluded personal feeling.</p><p>Josephus's difficulty, then, appears to be as follows. On the one hand, he has justified his own work by asserting that all previous histories have missed the standard of<span class="greek">ἀλήθεια</span>; they are strong on denunciation and encomium but nowhere exhibit<span class="greek">τò ἀϰριβές τῆς ἱστορίας</span>(1:2). When, however, he comes to state that his own goal will be<span class="greek">ἀϰρίβεια</span>pure and simple (1:9), he must concede that he will not on that account exclude his own opinions, especially his lament for his country's misfortunes (1:10). He also makes clear at this early stage that he harbours no ill will toward Titus and the Romans for the fall of his city; for them he has only esteem (1:10). For these intrusions of<span class="greek">πάθος</span>, which violate the law of history, he asks pardon (<span class="greek">συγγνώμη</span>, 1:11).</p><p>What are we to make of this pleading tone? Can it be that Josephus is here, in his opening lines, confessing his failure to live up to the ideals of history and breathing a hopeful prayer that, in spite of his failings, someone might be willing to read further? Hardly. As we have seen, the purpose of the preface was to excite interest and to stimulate the reader to read further. From that perspective, one may note at least four ways in which Josephus's professed violation of historical convention actually serves his ends well and lends power to his preface.</p><p>1. First, as Lieberich points out, Josephus's intended Greco-Roman readership (1:6, 16) might have been reluctant to pick up a book written by a Jew, purporting to tell how his country was destroyed by the Romans.<note id="p2_c3_n54" place="foot">Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 33f.</note>The potential reader might have balked at the prospect of a new history that promised not to flatter the Romans (1:2, 7-8) but to tell the truth about how they quelled the revolt (1:9). If Josephus desires a wide readership, therefore, he must make it plain in his prologue that<pb n="67" />he does not intend to heap guilt on the Romans. This goal he achieves by locating all responsibility for the revolt in the domestic strife (<span class="greek">στάσις οἰϰεία</span>) engineered by a handful of Jewish power-mongers (<span class="greek">οί Ἰονδαίων τύραννοι</span>, 1:10). The reader is put at ease when Josephus confirms that the cause of the catastrophe was not any foreign nation (1:12). If Josephus is not out to encourage anti-Semitism (1:2), he nevertheless makes no<hi rend="italic">a priori</hi>demand that the reader disavow entrenched prejudices and adopt a critical stance toward Rome. This book will be "safe" reading. Thus relieved, the reader can easily forgive Josephus's transgression of strict historical convention.</p><p>2. This attempt to set the reader at ease is not a mere invention for the prologue, however, but arises out of Josephus's deepest sentiments as these come into view throughout the book. In the prologue, he expresses his lament over Jerusalem with the words<span class="greek">ἐπολοφύρομαι</span>(1:9),<span class="greek">ὀλοφύρσις</span>, and<span class="greek">ὀδνρμός</span>(1:12). This theme of lament he will pick up quite early in the narrative (2:455; 4:128) and he will re-emphasize it as the catastrophe draws nearer.<note id="p2_c3_n55" place="foot">Cf.<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>5:19-20; 6:7, 96-111, 267, 271-274.</note></p><p>Lindner has pointed out striking parallels between Josephus's lament over the city and the lamentations of Jeremiah.<note id="p2_c3_n56" place="foot">Lindner,<hi rend="italic">Geschichtsauffassung</hi>, 133-140.</note>Josephus differs from Jeremiah, however, in his assigning of blame to a few tyrants only (rather than to all of Zion) and in his friendly portrayal of the occupying power (whereas Jeremiah had presented the Babylonians as the enemy).<note id="p2_c3_n57" place="foot">Ibid., 139f.</note>And these two peculiar points coincide with the<span class="greek">πάθη</span>that Josephus introduces in §§ 9-12, namely, his disgust for the rebels and his esteem for Titus and the Romans. Each of these themes will be recalled frequently, justified by further information, and otherwise developed throughout the body of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>. The reader is offered a taste of things to come in Josephus's outline of the book's contents (1:19-29), where he promises to describe the ironic savagery of the Jewish rebels toward their own (<span class="greek">ὀμοφύλονς</span>) and the consideration shown by the Romans toward<span class="greek">ἀλλοφύλονς</span>(1:27).</p><p>Thus the paragraph §§ 9-12 is the vehicle by which Josephus introduces the leading themes of his work. Since those themes contravene historical convention, because they express the historian's personal emotions, it is only by tampering with the convention that Josephus can find a place for them.</p><p>3. A third benefit that accrues to Josephus by his appearing to break with convention is the resulting sense of immediacy. Josephus shatters<pb n="68" />any suspicion that he might be a perfunctory historian, dutifully and dispassionately recounting the events of a far-off war. On the contrary, he claims that the sheer weight of the catastrophe in his homeland compels him to transgress the pettiness of convention:</p><p><q>For of all the cities under Roman rule it was the lot of ours to attain the highest felicity and to fall to the lowest depths of calamity. Indeed, in my opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began fall short of those of the Jews. (1:11-12; Thackeray)</q></p><p>By appealing to the enormousness of the events as justification for breaking a rule of historical writing, Josephus meets the challenge of creativity. The reader is drawn by events so tragic that the author cannot recount them with the usual detached style. He comes to share Josephus's impatience with any critic who might be too harsh (<span class="greek">σϰληρότερος</span>) for compassion (<span class="greek">οῑϰιτος</span>, 1:12).</p><p>4. Finally, Josephus's apparent disregard for historiographical norms actually enhances his credibility as a historian. He has only been driven to inject his emotions, he repeatedly says, because the country whose misfortunes are the subject of his work is<hi rend="italic">his</hi>homeland (<span class="greek">ἡ πατρίς</span>, 1:9, 10;<span class="greek">τὴν ἡμετέραν</span>, 1:11). Josephus will not allow the reader to forget that this is the Jerusalemite priest writing, one who personally fought against the Romans and who possesses first-hand knowledge of the entire war from both sides (cf. 1:3). This<span class="greek">αὐτοψία</span>—the most prized possession of a historian<note id="p2_c3_n58" place="foot">Cf. Thucydides 1:21; Polybius 4.2.1-4; Lucian,<hi rend="italic">History</hi>47f.; A. Momigliano, "Tradition and the Classical Historian", in his<hi rend="italic">Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography</hi>(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 161f.</note>—is Josephus's single greatest asset and he cannot let it slip by the reader. He admits to strong emotions about his subject but he emphasizes that they arise precisely from his close involvement with the events, which is itself a virtue.<note id="p2_c3_n59" place="foot">H. W. Benario (<hi rend="italic">An Introduction to Tacitus</hi>[Athens GA: University of Georgia Press, 1975], 148) remarks on Tacitus's notoriously exaggerated claim to write<hi rend="italic">sine ira et studio</hi>(<hi rend="italic">Annals</hi>1:;<hi rend="italic">History</hi>1:1), "only men who believe deeply about their subject, whether with favor or disfavor, can write great history".</note>Indeed, it is probably to drive home this advantage that Josephus includes the following lengthy attack on certain Greek savants (1:13-16), to which we shall turn presently.</p><p>Before proceeding to that passage, however, we might ask how serious a violation of convention Josephus's introduction of evaluative judgements really was. It is true that the attack on encomium and invective in historical writing, which Josephus also wages (1:2), was widespread in his time.<note id="p2_c3_n60" place="foot">Cf. Diodorus 21.17.4; Polybius 8.8.3-7; 8.11.12; Lucian,<hi rend="italic">History</hi>7-13; Herodian 1.1.2; Avenarius,<hi rend="italic">Lukians Schrift</hi>, 13ff.</note>Curiously, however, the most vociferous spokesman<pb n="69" />of the period for the exclusion of emotions from the "law of history" is Josephus himself (1:11; 5:19; 7:274), who also turns out to be the most self-conscious offender! This raises the question whether he really believed that his expression of feeling would be a hindrance to the reception of his book or, conversely, whether he raised an extreme standard in order deliberately to transgress it and thereby to achieve the results that we have noted.</p><p>It seems that the latter was the case. For Hellenistic historiography was open to censure and praise of historical actors, as long as these were judiciously applied.<note id="p2_c3_n61" place="foot">Avenarius, Lukians Schrift , 25, 157-159.</note>That is because, as Thucydides had already insisted (1.22.4), the purpose of studying history was to learn from the mistakes and triumphs of the past. Although this guidance from the past was at first thought of as primarily strategic and political, under rhetorical influence it soon widened to include a general moralizing sense.<note id="p2_c3_n62" place="foot">Ibid., 22f.</note>Even Polybius, the great exemplar of critical historiography, stressed the moral function of history. He believed that the distinctive feature of history was its praise (<span class="greek">ἔπαινος</span>) for virtuous conduct and its demonstration of the bases for negative moral judgements (2.61.5-6; 12.15.9). From Polybius onward, moral judgement on characters of the past (<span class="greek">ἔπαινοι ϰαὶ ψόγοι</span>) was an honourable component of historical writing, provided that it was cautious and demonstrable.<note id="p2_c3_n63" place="foot">Cf. Diodorus 15.1.1; Lucian,<hi rend="italic">History</hi>59.</note></p><p>But Josephus attempts from the start to justify, with much evidence, both his lament over Jerusalem and his strictures on the rebels. It seems, therefore, that his unsolicited confessions of guilt are actually rhetorical devices, contrived to show that the events of his narrative are of such import, and that he has been so closely involved in them, that he is pushing the limits of historical custom simply to recount them.</p><head><hi rend="italic">War 1:13-16</hi></head><p>The paragraph on the Hellenic savants (1:13-16) has vexed interpreters, who generally believe that the recovery of its meaning depends on an identification of the<span class="greek">λόγιοι</span>(1:13); these are usually considered to be a party of Josephus's opponents. Suggestions for the identification have ranged from the Roman author of a competing history of the war (so Schlatter) to Nicolaus of Damascus—Josephus's chief source for the early part of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>(Hölscher)—to Josephus's literary assistants (Thackeray).<note id="p2_c3_n64" place="foot">Schlatter,<hi rend="italic">Bericht</hi>, 44, 67; Hölscher, 1948, Thackeray, Josephus , 195.</note></p><pb n="70" /><p>The purely speculative character of these proposals has been shown by H. Lindner.<note id="p2_c3_n65" place="foot">"Eine offene Frage zur Auslegung des Bellum-Proömiums", in Josephus-Studien , edd. O. Betz, K. Haacker, and M. Hengel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 255-258.</note>His own suggestion, more closely grounded in the text, draws attention to the legal terminology employed by Josephus: the learned Greeks "sit in judgement" (<span class="greek">ϰάθηνται ϰριταί</span>) on current events (1:13) and where fees (<span class="greek">λήμματα</span>) or lawsuits (<span class="greek">δίϰαι</span>) are concerned, their oratorial prowess is quickly demonstrated (1:16). Lindner proposes, then, that the appearance of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>caused certain Greek historians in Rome to bring lawsuits against Josephus, who then raised the matter in his preface.<note id="p2_c3_n66" place="foot"><hi rend="italic">Ibid</hi>., 257f.</note>According to Lindner, Josephus polemicizes against his opponents and their paid lawyers as follows: if they are concerned about historical truthfulness, then they ought to present their own narratives of events; the courtroom, in which they can display their oratorial training, is an improper forum for such matters and relieves them of the labours that Josephus has had to endure.<note id="p2_c3_n67" place="foot">Lindner, "Frage", 257f.</note>Josephus's legal difficulties irritate him so much, Lindner suggests, that he embarks on a campaign against Greek historians generally (1:16), which he will continue in<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="Against Apion">Ag.Ap.</span></hi>(1:6-29).<note id="p2_c3_n68" place="foot">Ibid.</note></p><p>By focussing on the legal activity of the Greek<span class="greek">λόγιοι</span>, however, Lindner fails to explain the bulk of the paragraph (13-15), which criticizes their preoccupation with ancient history to the exclusion of current affairs. On his reading, further, the paragraph becomes fundamentally enigmatic, laced with veiled references to Josephus's present circumstances and including a gratuitous attack on Greek historians in general. We have seen, however, that the purposes of the Hellenistic historical preface were to attract, stimulate, and instruct the reader. As Lieberich points out:</p><p><q>Das Proömium ist in erster Linie dem Bedürfnis entsprungen, dem Leser im voraus eine kurze Aufklärung über das Werk zu bieten, ihm, wie Aristoteles treffend sagt, 'eine Handhabe zu geben', dass er sich daran halten und der Rede folgen kann.<note id="p2_c3_n69" place="foot">Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 47f.</note></q></p><p>Until now (1:1-12), Josephus has displayed an acute sensitivity to these tasks and has handled them deftly. In 1:17-30 he continues to demonstrate his mastery of the prologue form. Is it reasonable, then, to suppose that Josephus has chosen the mid-point of an otherwise compelling preface to vent his emotions about some undisclosed personal difficulties,<pb n="71" />thereby creating an obscure paragraph? One expects him, on the contrary, to provide enough information for the reader to follow at least the main lines of his argument, for only by such a course can he hope to fulfill the goal of the preface and to win a substantial readership.</p><p>Nearer to the mark is the recent analysis of H. W. Attridge. Attridge's point of departure is the well-known correspondence between Josephus's remarks in 1:13-16 and the historiographical principles of Polybius.<note id="p2_c3_n70" place="foot">Attridge,<hi rend="italic">Interpretation</hi>, 44f.; cf. already Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 34, and Avenarius,<hi rend="italic">Lukians Schrift</hi>, 81.</note>Namely: Josephus claims that certain learned men among the "Hellenes" (apparently shorthand for Greeks and Romans, cf. 1:16), although living in a time of stirring events, disparage current affairs as an object of historical research (1:13) and choose rather to write about ancient times, especially the Assyrian and Median empires. Josephus's critique of such a practice comes from many sides: (i) the ancient writers already covered this ground well (§ 13); (ii) their modern counterparts are inferior to them in both literary capacity (<span class="greek">δυνάμεως ἐν τῷ γράφειν</span>) and judgement (<span class="greek">γνώμης</span>, § 14)<note id="p2_c3_n71" place="foot">Significantly, Lucian posits as the two supreme qualifications of the historian "political understanding" (<span class="greek">σύνεσις πολιτιϰή</span>) and "power of expression" (<span class="greek">δύναμις ἑρμηνευτιϰη</span>).</note>and are thus reduced to futile rearrangements of the older accounts (§ 15); (iii) writing about contemporary events has the double advantage of providing the clarity that comes from an eye-witness's perception and of being subject to challenge from other living witnesses (§ 14); (iv) writing about one's own times is in fact the example set by the ancient masters; and (v) writing of contemporary events is the more virtuous enterprise because it requires a really industrious writer (<span class="greek">φιλόπονος</span>) who can produce an original historical contribution (§ 15).</p><p>All of these historical principles, Josephus charges, have eluded the natural heirs (<span class="greek">γνήσιοι</span>) of the Hellenic tradition, who put out their best efforts only in the courtrooms (§ 16). It has fallen to him, therefore, a foreigner (<span class="greek">ἀλλόφυλος</span>), to maintain the old virtues of painstaking effort in ascertaining facts and of truthful speaking in historical writing. Historical truthfulness is being slighted by the Hellenes but among the Jews (<span class="greek">παρ᾽ ἡμῖν</span>) it is still held in honour (§ 16). Josephus, a prime example of Jewish historiographical prowess, has spared himself neither money (<span class="greek">ἀναλώματα</span>) nor labour (<span class="greek">πόνος</span>) in producing the present work.</p><p>In several places, Polybius defends his own choice of a modern starting point and his mistrust of ancient history (cf. especially 4.2.1-4). He points out, for example, that another historian's work covers the period immediately preceding the one he has chosen (4.2.1). Elsewhere he<pb n="72" />claims that the whole field of ancient history has been so often and variously worked over that any modern author on the subject faces the equally repugnant alternatives of plagiarism and futile rearrangement (9.2.1-2). Second, he explains that his chosen focal point coincides with his own and the preceding generations, which means that he can always consult living witnesses on his subject (4.2.2) and thereby control his material. To reach any further into the past, he says, would force him to write on the basis of hearsay (<span class="greek">ὡς ἀϰοὴν ἐξ ἀϰοῆς γράφειν</span>), which would preclude certainty (<span class="greek">ἀσφαλεῖς</span>) in judgement (4.2.3).<note id="p2_c3_n72" place="foot">Cf. the preface to Luke, where the author claims that he can prove<span class="greek">τὴν ἀσφαλείαν</span>of the events which he describes (1:4) because: (a) they were accomplished<span class="greek">ἐν ἡμῖν</span>— therefore, within living memory (1:1); (b) they were passed on by<span class="greek">αὐτόπται</span>(1:2); and (c) they have been followed with accuracy (<span class="greek">ἀϰριβῶς</span>) from the beginning by the author himself (1:3).</note>Finally, it is only with the events he has chosen to narrate that one can see the hand of<span class="greek">Τύχη</span>rebuilding the world (4.2.4). This theme was already sounded in his preface (1.4). Although, however, Polybius claims that it is Fortune's activity that makes contemporary history most compelling (4.2.4), in his polemic against the rhetorical historian Timaeus he draws mainly on the more concrete principles: (i) that what has been covered adequately by others needs no reiteration and (ii) that only what can be checked through living witnesses is secure. To these factors he adds the contrast between the comfortable circumstances in which one may write ancient history (by simply finding a good library!) and the severe hardships (<span class="greek">ϰαϰοπάθειαι</span>) or even danger (<span class="greek">ϰίνδυνος</span>) that await the personal investigator of events—hardships both physical and financial (12.27.4-6).</p><p>On these points (excluding the argument concerning Fortune), it is easy to see shades of Polybius in Josephus's argument in<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:13-16.</p><p>The difficulty is to know what to make of the correspondence between the principles of Polybius and<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:13-16. Attridge takes this passage to be Josephus's statement of historiographical principle for<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>, a statement that recognizes only recent events as the proper object of history. When Josephus comes to write<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>, Attridge argues, he will have changed his principles; only his new devotion to the "rhetorical" school of historiography allows him there to write about ancient Jewish history.</p><p>A full discussion of the historiography of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>and<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>would be out of place here. In "Appendix A", at the end of the study, I shall offer some considerations along those lines, in response to Attridge's proposal. These may be summarized, together with our observations thus far, as follows. (a)<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:13-16 contains a critique of those who deal exclusively with ancient history. (b) The arguments assembled to make this point are<span class="greek">τόποι</span>of Polybian ilk. (c) By the time of Josephus, however,<pb n="73" />these principles had lost much of their compelling justification; many, if not most historians, were electing to write about antiquity. (d) The polemic against ancient history is wholly unrelated to Josephus's actual views about writing ancient<hi rend="italic">Jewish</hi>history. The paragraph does not, therefore, represent his statement of historiographical principle. It is unlikely that Josephus had any deep convictions about whether the Hellenes should have been writing ancient or modern history. His own task was Jewish history, which he evidently considered<hi rend="italic">sui generis</hi>(<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="Against Apion">Ag.Ap.</span></hi>1:29-43).</p><p>Why, then, the harangue about the shoddiness and laziness of those Greeks who write ancient history? We have seen that the<hi rend="italic">mea culpa</hi>in 912 achieves many things for Josephus; in particular it serves to remind the reader yet again of the author's privileged status as an eyewitness. This theme he introduces early and emphasizes repeatedly in the preface (1:1, 2, 3, 6, 9-12). He has been driven to contravene the norm of objectivity in historical reporting, he now claims, because the catastrophe happened in his land and he witnessed the patience of the Romans and the obstinacy of the tyrants. Although his confession serves him well, however, Josephus must pay a price for including it. That price is reflected in his final admission (1:12) that some critics (though pettifoggers, to be sure!) might still find fault with him. Although he has attempted to win the reader's support for his unorthodox approach, he cannot yet rest his case. He requires a more persuasive note on which to end.</p><p>In order, then, to extricate himself fully from any suspicion of malpractice, Josephus decides to shift attention away from his own possible deficiencies to the comparatively heinous sin of others. Hence the opening words of the paragraph (1:13):<span class="greek">ϰαίτοι γε ἐπιτιμήσαιμ᾽ ἄν αὐτὸς διϰαίως τοῖς Ἑλλήνων λογίοις</span>, rendered well by Thackeray: "Yet I, on my side, might justly censure those erudite Greeks". If Josephus might be censured (§ 11) for expressing<span class="greek">πάθη</span>that result from his proximity to the events, he will hasten to point out a much more serious failure on the part of his contemporaries: many of them do not even possess that treasured quality of first-hand knowledge. Under the<hi rend="italic">Pax Romana</hi>it was rare that educated writers found themselves in the midst of momentous upheavals, of the sort that Thucydides had witnessed.<note id="p2_c3_n73" place="foot">Avenarius, Lukians Schrift , 83f.</note>For this and other reasons historians had come, by the first century, to deal primarily with events of bygone ages (see Appendix A). But the great historians who had been able to write of current events retained their glory, as Momigliano remarks:</p><pb n="74" /><p><q>In Late Antiquity antiquarians were in a mood of self-congratulation. Yet they never get the upper hand. The prestige of the interpreter of recent events—of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius . . . remained unshaken.<note id="p2_c3_n74" place="foot">Momigliano,<hi rend="italic">Essays</hi>, 164.</note></q></p><p>It is this prestige that Josephus wants to share. He fully realizes his incredible good luck, from a historian's perspective, in having witnessed first-hand the events of a major war from both sides. His eyewitness status is therefore the theme of the whole preface to<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>(1:1-3). To reinforce his point now, Josephus reaches into the reservoir of Hellenistic historiography and draws out an appropriate and venerable weapon, the Polybian attack on ancient history.</p><p>The Polybian broadside, however, is only a tool in Josephus's hands. If, as seems probable, he had no stake whatsoever in the question whether Greeks should choose ancient or modern themes for their study, then the tirade may be read less as a heartfelt denunciation of his contemporaries than as an indirect means of praising his own work. Josephus (§ 13) accuses the<span class="greek">λόγιοι</span>of disparaging "great events of their own lifetime" (<span class="greek">τηλιϰόοτων ϰατ' αὐτοὺς πραγμάτων γεγενημέτων</span>) although these "by comparison reduce to insignificance the wars of antiquity" (<span class="greek">ἃ ϰατὰ σύγϰρισιν ἐλαϰίστους ἀποδείϰνυσι τοὺς πάλαι πολέμους</span>).</p><p>This charge recalls Josephus's opening words (1:1) in which he opines that the Jewish war against the Romans was the greatest (<span class="greek">μέγιστον</span>) of practically all the wars of recorded history (cf. also 1:4). The correspondence between that early claim and the charge in § 13 suggests that the great events which the Hellenic savants ignore to their peril are not current affairs in general but precisely the events of the Judean revolt. The suggestion is confirmed by the recapitulation (16): what the Greeks neglect are called "the deeds of the rulers (<span class="greek">τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἡγεμόνων</span>)": presumably, the deeds of Vespasian and Titus.<note id="p2_c3_n75" place="foot"><hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>(or part of it) was published in the lifetime of Vespasian (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>359-361) and authorized by Titus (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>363).</note>But the theatre in which these two cooperated so famously was the Judean revolt. Josephus is not, therefore, simply admonishing his Greek counterparts to abandon their vain enquiries and join the virtuous league of those who report current events. He is criticizing them because, in their dual preoccupation with ancient history and with the courtroom,<note id="p2_c3_n76" place="foot">Writing history in the Hellenistic world was usually an avocation, not a profession, for the rhetorically trained. Dionysius suggests that Theopompus's full-time work on history was unusual (<hi rend="italic">Letter to Pomp</hi>. 64.6; cf. Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 20). By profession, many historians were lawyers (cf. Cicero,<hi rend="italic">Orator</hi>1:44, 234-250). This fact explains Josephus's references to the oratorical abilities of the Hellenic historians "in the courtroom" (1:16) more simply than does Lindner's proposal that some of the Greek hstorians were bringing a lawsuit against Josephus.</note>they have let the<pb n="75" />truth about the Judean revolt suffer at the hands of inferior and uninformed writers.<note id="p2_c3_n77" place="foot">Presumably, these are the writers already castigated in 1:1-2, 6-8.</note></p><p>Does Josephus really believe that these Hellenic savants ought to have written about the Judean campaign, or indeed that they could have done so responsibly? Probably not. That is the point. His ostensible attack on Greek historians for writing ancient history is really nothing other than an oblique recitation of his own credentials. The self-commendation loses its obliqueness finally as Josephus spells out what he wants the reader to understand from all of this, namely he himself is the<span class="greek">φιλόπονος</span>mentioned earlier, whose work deserves praise and acclaim (§ 15), because he has spent tremendous sums and personal effort (<span class="greek">ἀναλώμασι ϰαί πόνοις μεγίστοις</span>) to bring an accurate account of this great and recent war. It is Josephus, the foreigner, the Jew, who has fulfilled the requirements of writing history—truthful speaking and painstaking collection of the facts—while the Hellenes have missed the mark.<note id="p2_c3_n78" place="foot">P. Collomp,<hi rend="italic">Technik</hi>, 278ff., finds in Josephus's polemic against the Hellenic historians the claim that truthfulness in history lies with those called "barbarians" by the Greeks.</note></p><p>Thus the paragraph 1:13-16, like the one before it, accomplishes several things for Josephus. First, it shifts attention far away from his confessed violation of the "law of history". Second, the purpose of the attack on those who write ancient history, drawing as it does on Polybian commonplaces, is to emphasize Josephus's own virtues as the historian of the Jewish war. He has first-hand information, which he acquired through great effort and expense. Finally, Josephus anticipates his final work,<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="Against Apion">Ag.Ap.</span></hi>(1:6-27), by casting the whole polemic in David/Goliath, Jew/Hellene, or<span class="greek">ἀλλόφυλος/γνήσιος</span>terms: Josephus the Jew is out to protect<span class="greek">τῆς ἱστορίας ἀληθές</span>, for which the Hellenes have lost all concern.</p><p>Following this polemic, Josephus offers his justification for beginning where he does (17-18), discussed above, then an outline of the seven books of<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>(19-29), and a concluding word (30).</p> |
