The Jewish War: First half of Book 1

[cahn]

I am super not promising to always have this on Saturday, but yay long weekend!

Last week: I know some of you reading this study Talmud -- Josephus asserts at the very beginning that the "sufferings of the Jews" (presumably, in context of Josephus' writing, Titus destroying the temple, etc. though we won't get there for a while) are their own fault: "no foreign power is to blame." It was pointed out that the Talmud may (?) have its own opinion(s) as to whether the destruction of the Temple and the resulting diaspora was divine punishment? And regardless of the former, may also blame Titus? (I also don't know yet, because we haven't gotten there yet and won't for a while, whether Josephus himself thinks it's divine punishment or just plain old temporal consequences. My vague recollection of Feuchtwanger's Josephus is that he was thinking more of the latter, which is also very much borne out by this week's reading.)

This week: First half of Book 1 (Ch 22 / Par 444):

Okay, I must say the first part of this was a slog for me -- flitting between a lot of people I didn't know. Good thing we have this reading group or I might not have got through it. As it was, I had to take copious notes to even make a stab at writing up a summary (I won't promise I'll do this every week, but I had a little extra time and quite frankly I knew I wouldn't remember who any of these people were next week if I didn't), and I'm going to put them in comments so this post doesn't get super long. At least Josephus felt it was "inappropriate to go into the early history of the Jews," which would have made it really long. Anyway, it got substantially more interesting once Herod showed up!

Next week: Finish book 1.

Comments

Paragraphs 31-120: Mattias and a few generations under him

[cahn]

As is perhaps inevitable, I took more notes at the beginning, partially because I really needed to at this point, but also because it was the beginning. Again I will not promise to do this every week :)

- I understand he needs to give some context for what's going to happen, but I was rather amused that after that whole preface of "obviously it's better to write about history you actually saw" he started out with a bunch of history that he absolutely was not a part of!
- Josephus starts right away on the theme of divisions within the Jews: another faction expelled the sons of Tobias, who went to Antiochus and got him to invade Judaea (this is NOT in the books of the Maccabees to the best of my knowledge!!)
- The Hasmonaeans (Matthias and his five sons, of whom the oldest was Judas Maccabeus) drove Antiochus out (this and a couple of the following bullets are, I think, in the books of the Maccabees, which I didn't really have time to read but paged briefly through)
- After Mattias dies, Judas and his brothers kept fighting Antiochus's son, also OF COURSE named Antiochus (the text says Judas allied with Rome, but the footnotes say that didn't actually happen at this point)
- The brothers don't do so well against Antiochus Jr. and keep dying, up until Simon, who drove Antiochus out of Judea and became high priest
- Then Simon's son-in-law Ptolemy killed him (no reason is given) but his third son, John Hyrcanus, escapes
- Hyrcanus fought various people and was pretty successful at this time, according to Josephys, although he "was resented at home and provoked factional hostility." (sensing a theme)
- His oldest son, Aristobulus, became king, killed his fave brother, and died of remorse (this part was super gossipy)
- Another of Hyrcanus' sons, Alexander, became king (and prompty killed one of his remaining brothers)
- He had various conflicts, including one in which his entire army got trapped in a ravine "and was trampled to death by a mass of camels," which I find much funnier than maybe I should
- Some rebels against Alexander get help from Demetrius the Unready, whom the notes say is actually known as Demetrius the Ready, which I feel like is a rather profound difference
- Alexander killed a ton of people but eventually I guess wins over Demetrius and gets peace, but the brother of Demetrius, confusingly also named Antiochus, attacks him
- Alexander dies; his wife Alexandra (really??) ruled for a while, then his sons, confusingly named Hyrcanus (the heir) and Aristobulus (not the heir, but at least has a unique name) duke it out. "Most of Hyrcanus' troops deserted him and went over to Aristobulus." Whoops! (Aristobulus wins.)

Re: Paragraphs 31-120: Mattias and a few generations under him

[selenak]

I do agree the pre Herod part is something of a slog. Which it shares in common with a lot of academic work that summarizes the research history before the main event, so to speak! Also I suspect Josephus' sources get better the closer he gets to his own time. He'd have known any number of people with strong opinions on Herod in his childhood, for starters.

What this summarizing does is show the entanglement of Judea and the Jews in the Hellenistic world and its strife, which is part of the point, I suspect, i.e. Josephus wants the make clear (especially to his Greek reading audience with a snobbish attitude towards the Jews that they were not some weird outliers, they were often the center of the action. The action being the endless series of rivalries and wars between the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's generals. As a reminder to you, the three most important kingdoms established in the fallout of the "Successor Wars" (what Stealing Fire is about) after AtG's death were: 1) Macedon. (Its kings tend to be called Philip, Alexander or a combination thereof. Will eventually get mopped up by the Romans who get to demonstrate the legendary Macedonian phalanx is no more the best military tool it was when AtG defeated everyone else with it.) Macedon is also ruling the rest of Greece, and rest of Greece is never really happy about this. They won't be thrilled by the Romans taking over, either, but there you go. 2.) Egypt. Where the Ptolemies reign (when they don't have civil war against each other). Usually not the largest but the richest of the successor kingdoms, the breadbasket of the Ancient World. Has the best natural defense lines which usually, but not always, makes it hard to conquer. 3) The Seleukid Kingdom. The largest of the lot. Persia plus a few other Middle Eastern states (at its height, up and including Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Would have been the most powerful all the time except they also have a lot of internal succession strife, plus they have an ongoing rivalry with Ptolemaic Egypt, though they're also intermarrying frequently. The Seleukid Empire repeatedly breaks up into smaller kingdoms and reunites, too. Their Kings during the relevant time period tend to be called Mithridates and Antiochus. Both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids think Syria should be theirs, which is, of course, there Judea comes in and why there are such a lot alliances of Jewish High Priests with either dynasty, depending on the tactical situation.

On to what Josephus actually writes: His paragraphs on Alexandra struck as the first but not the last example of Josephus following the general tendency of Ancient (male) historians: women in power are by default bad news. In varying degrees. I mean, he even grudgingly admits Alexandra did a pretty good job as regent but simultanously declares she was just a tool for the Pharisees. (Who interestingly get bad press from him. I didn't expect this out of the gospels, whose authors have their own grudge match with the Pharisees.) It will get worse when he gets to Cleopatra, and there are others. Like I said, though, this is anything but unusual. Reading through Suetonius and Plutarch reminded me of this all over again. If you're a woman, and you're not Cornelia Mother of the Gracchi, you should not be famous at all, you should be unseen and unheard, because if you are famous and forced historians to take note of you, you are bad news, and must be written thus.

Paragraphs 121:239: Hyrcanus and Antigonus and Antipater!

[cahn]

- Okay, so, Aristobulus had this enemy Antipater (who, it turns out, is the father of Herod). So Antipater gets everyone pumped up about Hyrcanus.
- The Romans eventually get involved, Pompey the Great in particular.
- After some everyone-is-annoying-here, Pompey lays siege to the temple and breaks in. "Pompey could only admire the resilience of the Jews." Romans are very admiring of the Jews in this book, as the footnote points out. I guess Pompey was on Antipater's side?
- After Pompey's death, Antipater hangs out with (Julius) Caesar. Okay. So Caesar likes Hyrcanus and Antipater, and in a dramatic scene lets Hyrcanus (instead of Antigonus, the son of Aristonulus, so, Hyrcanus' nephew, and who also, I think, has a unique name?) be high priest and Antipater "procurator of all Judaea." (The footnote does not know what that means.)
- Josephus says that Antipater was "already taking the administration of the country into his own hands, aware that Hyrcanus was a laid-back character too flabby for kingship" (203), which I think is hilarious and good job translator too! He sends two of his sons, Phasael and Herod, to be governor of Jerusalem and Galilee respectively. Herod has entered the chat!
- Hyrcanus doesn't like all of this and he and Herod clash. Menwhile, "Caesar was treacherously killed by Cassius and Brutus"(218). (It occurs to me that the only thing I know about all this is Shakespeare, and would like a crash course in what the Romans thought of Caesar's assassination, please?)
- There's a whole subplot with this guy Malichus who kills Antipater and then Herod kills him

Re: Paragraphs 121:239: Hyrcanus and Antigonus and Antipater!

[selenak]

Romans are very admiring of the Jews in this book, as the footnote points out.

Aka Josephus not so subtly making a point to his Roman readers. It did occur to me that likely what he wants to achieve is an image change for the Jews among Romans from "one of many people we defeated" to "the new Carthaginians", i.e. the Great Worthy Opponent Who Only After A Titanic Struggle Submitted".

It occurs to me that the only thing I know about all this is Shakespeare, and would like a crash course in what the Romans thought of Caesar's assassination, please?

Which Romans and when? Because of course that makes a huge difference. Evidently opinion was divided directly after the event, hence years and years of Civil War, though obviously Cassius and Brutus had been kidding themselves if they thought they'd be greated as liberators by universal acclaim. Once Octavian/Augustus emerged as the final victor and started the Principate, he could present himself as a generous victor and blame all the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate and the ca. 3000 dead Senators and Knights on Antony instead of himself as well, though writing too complimentary about Brutus and Cassius could get you side eyed and could end your career under the divine Augustus, too. The next few Emperors did not want to encourage assassinations, especially since assassinations and attempted assassinations, usually by the same senatorial class that produced Brutus & Cassius, happened anyway, so boo, hiss, on the conspirators. Once the Julian-Claudian dynasty was over, Brutus in particular got good PR (especially in Plutarch, which is what Shakespaere mainly drew on), though some remaining criticism, too, but the general consensus among ancient historians comes across as: even if you ascribe to them the best motives and believe they truly wanted to save the Republic, well, they achieved the exact opposite.

One footnote to (Julius) Caesar as liking Hyrcanus and Antipater: Suetonius backs Josephus up in his Caesar biography; remember, he mentions Caesar being a patron of the Jews and thus them mourning for him in particular after his assassination. Suetonius, writing under Hadrian who will turn Jerusalem into rubble, does not mean this as a compliment to Caesar. (It's mentioned as a minus much as Caesar multitasking by reading and replying to letters during gladiator games and having sex with adult men is.)

Paragraphs 240-444: Herod!

[cahn]

- Herod divorces his first wife, Doris (their son Antipater will, so the notes say, be in next week's reading) and marries Marianne, the daughter of Aristobulus' son Alexander and granddaughter of Hyrcanus... so... Alexander married his aunt? Is that what I'm getting from this?
- D'you remember Antigonus, Aristobulus' son? OK, so, there's this whole plot to put him on the throne with the help of the Parthians. The Parthians capture Herod's brother Phasael and Hyrcanus. The former kills himself bravely and the latter is a "miserable coward," lol.
- Herod tries to get the Arabs to help. Nope. "Herod gave the king's messengers an answer prompted by his feelings" (277) -- I also find this hilarious
- Mark Antony likes Herod (liked the late Antipater). Caesar Augustus likes him too, and they agree Herod can be king. Antigonus is still around, so they fight some.
- Herod's brother Joseph goes up against Antigonus while Herod's away (against Herod's order) and is killed.
- Herod avenges him, lays siege to Jerusalem, takes "time off from the siege to get married"(344) (which Josephus cites as Herod being so sure of himself, although the footnotes point out that it was an important political alliance), finally gets in, Antigonus is taken prisoner.
- "Those who had taken [Herod's] side had their loyalty confirmed by the distribution of favours, while the partisans of Antigonus were simply liquidated." Whoa. Sucks to be you!
- Herod fights Arabs for Antony
- There's an earthquake and Herod makes a stirring speech that I am told by the footnotes that Josephus totally made up
- Antony got defeated by Caesar Augustus .
Herod: Caesar, remember I was a good friend to Antony? Well, I could be a good friend to you!
Caesar: It makes more sense to be friends with me than with him!
- Anyway, Caesar is cool with him staying king, and Herod builds a lot of stuff and sponsors the Olympics
- About Mariamme, his wife. His son Antipater by his first wife gets banished. He kills her grandpa Hyrcanus (d'you remember him? gosh, you gotta imagine Herod's dad Antipater is rolling in his grave) and her brother Jonathan bc he was jealous of him. After all that, she is not a big fan of his, to put it mildly. He's really into her, though.
- The footnote to this says that Caesar Augustus apparently said that it was better to be Herod's pig (Greek: hus) than his son (huios), as the pig was less likely to be killed
- And, as I mentioned last week, in one of those epic miscommunications that really ought to be a romance novel or an opera (is it an opera? It should be), Herod kills Mariamme (as well as his brother-in-law Joseph).

Re: Paragraphs 240-444: Herod!

[selenak]

Mariamme: to quote wikipedia on her lineage: "Mariamne was the daughter of the Hasmonean Alexandros, also known as Alexander of Judaea, and thus one of the last heirs to the Hasmonean dynasty of Judea.[1] Mariamne's only sibling was Aristobulus III. Her father, Alexander of Judaea, the son of Aristobulus II, married his cousin Alexandra, daughter of his uncle Hyrcanus II, in order to cement the line of inheritance from Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but the inheritance soon continued the blood feud of previous generations, and eventually led to the downfall of the Hasmonean line. By virtue of her parents' union, Mariamne claimed Hasmonean royalty on both sides of her family lineage."

She also claimed descent from the house of David, which Herod could not, which isn't immaterial to both the reason for their marriage and its eventual fate.

When reading all the passages about Antony, it's worth remembering that ancient historians had a problem there. Immediately after his defeat, he was the bad guy in official histiography. But starting with Gaius Caligula, the rest of the Julio-Claudian Emperors weren't just descended from Augustus, they were descended from Antony as well, and so some pro-Antony sources resurfaced. Which of course had to be combined with Augustus praise, but how? Blaming Cleopatra was part of the solution. These are some of the sources Josephus draws on. He has the additional problem that Herod started out as a client of Antony, who was instrumental in making him King, and ended up as a client of Octavian/Augustus, but he doesn't want Herod to look like a complete ungrateful opportunist who switched sides once Antony is falling. So not only is it said that Antony AND Octavian told the Senate that Herod would make a great King, but Herod is excused from not coming to Antony's aid militarily in his final showdown with Octavian by virtue of being tied down with the Arabs militarily, and then we have the "I was a friend to Antony and could be a good one to you!" "You're so awesome as a friend!" exchange with Octavian/Augustus placed after Antony's death. In between, we also get some Cleopatra badmouthing for taking Herod's sandalwood forest and destroying Antony's judgment because he supposedly was so infatuated with her.

Now, a recent historian I've read was also critical of Cleopatra but for the opposite reason: Herod, he argues, managed to keep his kingdom as a Roman client kingdom within his life time instead of it being made into a Roman province by changing sides in time, deserting Antony for Octavian, and it paid off for him. Cleopatra was the lesser monarch in the opinion of this historian for not dumping Antony in time and achieving the same result, thereby ending up as the last monarch of Egypt in the ancient world and getting her kingdom conquered and reduced to a Roman province. I find the comparison interesting but also unfair, because Cleopatra's and Herod's situations were not the same, and not just because Egypt was far more wealthier and strategically important than little Judea (and hence more of a must have, must directly control for Romans). Cleopatra, to make a long argument short so we don't get distracted, could not have allied with Octavian instead of Antony once Octavian's overall victory was on the horizon without sacrificing her oldest son (who among so many other things was her official co-ruler). She had insisted (and there is no reason to doubt it) that Caesarion was (Gaius Julius) Caesar's son throughout his life. Antony had backed her up on this. Octavian's main claim on the formerly Caesarian legions rested on being the adopted son of GJC - the only legitimate true son. As Octavian himself would put it when giving the order to kill Caesarion (and Antony's oldest son by Fulvia): "Too many Caesars." There could only be one.

Speaking of killing relations, it's a rich that Josephus goes on about Cleopatra having killed all her family and naming this as a uniquely evil trait of hers (never mind the Ptolemies offing each other through various generations and the fact the siblings of this generation had been at it when Cleopatra was still a child) in an overall story where he described the Jewish priestly and then royal dynasties doing the very same thing to each other.

Mariamme: did make it into opera. And drama. A lot of drama. Including one by Voltaire. Who, being Voltaire, managed to use the drama for more drama because it was part of a feud with his rival who also wrote a drama about Mariamme, and with Rousseau. More here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9rode_et_Mariamne

Byron (as in, the poet, Lord Byron) collaborated with a Jewish composer, Isaac Nathan, in a song "Herod's lament for Mariamne".

Herod building a lot of stuff is what his extra biblical main claim of fame rests on, because all these Herodian buildings include Masada in its final shape, Caesarea as a founded city, and of course, the Second Temple (i.e. the wall of tears remaining in Jerusalem). In terms of this book, I would say he's the first memorable character who emerges. So far, Josephus has presented him mainly in positives, though you may have guessed Mariamne won't be the last death. If you want a short and witty summation of Herod based mainly on his portrayal by Josephus, Extra History did one here.