The Jewish War: First half of Book 2

[cahn]

Last week: Discussion on how Herod stacked up against various Roman emperors in terms of body count of his nearest and dearest; how Friedrich Wilhelm might hear the Josephus text; Herod throwing money around; Cleopatra!

This week: ...uhhhh there was a lot going on and I haven't actually finished the reading yet *ducks* -- I am doing that right now and I should most likely be able to comment tomorrow. (I don't anticipate this being a problem again for at least two more months, and most likely not then either; this was a confluence of various time sinks that doesn't usually happen all at the same time.) But I wanted to go ahead and get the post up because I know you guys have read it... (ETA: have finished the reading now :P :) )

Next week: finishing up Book 2!

Comments

[selenak]

Fake Neros: one is briefly mentioned in the second of Feuchtwanger’s Josephus novels, because Lion wrote an entire separate novel Der falsche Nero about the guy. Said novel is political satire because this particular fake Nero is evidently a Hitler avatar, with his two most prominent sidekicks standing in for Goebbels and Göring. (BTW, it’s well intended but not one of Feuchtwanger’s better novels, precisely because the satire is so obvious. His take on Domitian, who isn’t supposed to be a Hitler avatar, is a far better take on a paranoid dictator. The problem with his Nero impostor, in terms of what the novel tries to achieve, is that the guy is so ridiculous that you never quite believe he’s also dangerous, which he is for a time (including getting people killed). Anyway, in both “Der Falsche Nero” and “Die Söhne”, Feuchtwanger lets Titus comment “strange how a little fish can stink so much” on the affair.

What the existence of fake Neros does demonstrate, though, is that he was still popular in some of the provinces, otherwise the fake Neros wouldn’t have been able to con so many people out of support and money so successfully. I mean, a fake Alexander, son of Herod, can play the sympathy card (“I had to hide because Dad tried to kill me!”) and the man he’s supposed to be never was in power and thus couldn’t make enemies beyond his family. But Nero had been in power for 13 years when he died.

(BTW, I think there is also a novel where a fake Nero is actually real Nero who faked his death, but I forgot by whom.)

“Tricked” versus “bewitched”: in either case, it’s a ridiculous charge. I mean, obviously she lobbied as hard as she could, but methinks Josephus just wants to let the man (i.e. Claudius) off the hook here for making the decision, because he can’t imagine another reason as to why a ruler would prefer his adopted to his biological son. (Especially since Josephus knows how the adopted son will turn out.) Which is ignoring both the possible reasons already named by me (Nero was older, he was via his mother a direct blood descendant of Augustus which neither Claudius nor Britannicus were, and adoption was a tried and true Roman custom) and another potential one, because Britannicus’ mother Messalina had not been the most faithful of wives, after all.

(Robert Graves gives Claudius a different reason for both the marriage with Agrippina and the adoption of Nero, because his Claudius secretly wanted to bring back the republic all his life, missed out on doing so when becoming Emperor, realised too late that when being a good Emperor he was making people fond of the monarchy and then decided to marry the worst woman ever, i.e. Agrippina, and make Nero his successor because he knew Nero would inevitably be the worst of the Julio-Claudians and expected that this would finally make Romans into Republicans again and finish the Principate for good. This premise works within the novel and tv show, but had a fatal heritage because ever since Robert Graves, every sympathetic Roman character in the Imperial Era wants to bring back the Republic, which, no, no, and no.)

In any event, again, Claudius was the first Emperor who even had a living son to not choose, and the next one would be Vespasian. Then once the three Flavians are gone, we famously get the Five Good Emperors, all of whom adopt the next one, and Marcus Aurelius finishing this grand tradition by not adopting someone and instead making his son Commodus his heir is infamously the one big thing held against Marcus Aurelius, though as Mildred says, none of his precedessors among the Five HAD a biological son. So basically in 130 years of Emperors, adoption is the norm and biological inheritance is the exception, because only Vespasian => Titus and then Marcus Aurelius => Commodus are cases where an Emperor makes his biological son his successor, and even if you add fraternal inheritance (i.e. Titus => Domitian), it’s still the exception compared to all the adoptions otherwise.

(To be fair: for the Julio-Claudians, adoptions within a larger family context. I.e. Augustus adopts Tiberius who is his wife’s son from her previous marriage. Tiberius adopts his nephew Germanicus and after Germanicus’ death makes Germanicus’ son Caligula his (co-)heir. (The other co-heir being his biological grandson Gemellus who doesn’t live long into Caligula’s reign.) Caligula doesn’t pick anyone because he gets murdered, but he is succeeded by his uncle Claudius. Claudius adopts Nero who is also his biological great-nephew (since Agrippina is his niece.) Nero is the last.)

It does occur to me that because the Herod family drama and inheritance battle happens all between biological sons (though said sons have factions and champions among the rest of the family, i.e. aunts, uncles etc.). The idea of adopting a nephew or great nephew instead presumably felt very alien to Josephus….

Graves' Claudius and the Republic

[cahn]

What the existence of fake Neros does demonstrate, though, is that he was still popular in some of the provinces, otherwise the fake Neros wouldn’t have been able to con so many people out of support and money so successfully.

Ah right, I remember you mentioned that he was popular in some places.

his Claudius secretly wanted to bring back the republic all his life, missed out on doing so when becoming Emperor, realised too late that when being a good Emperor he was making people fond of the monarchy and then decided to marry the worst woman ever, i.e. Agrippina, and make Nero his successor because he knew Nero would inevitably be the worst of the Julio-Claudians and expected that this would finally make Romans into Republicans again and finish the Principate for good.

Oh wow. This sounds like the kind of justification that can work in a novel and that I would enjoy in a novel buuuuut also seems to rely on so many things as to be rather implausible.

but had a fatal heritage because ever since Robert Graves, every sympathetic Roman character in the Imperial Era wants to bring back the Republic, which, no, no, and no.

Because they wouldn't actually have thought that way?

Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic

[selenak]

It does work in the novel and in the tv show, as I said, but even within the tv show, they add a scene where Claudius shortly before his death has a conversation with Britannicus where he explains he is not really a tool of Agrippina, he hates her and her son, but the Republic, etc., and Britannicus essentially says: But Dad, no one wants the Republic anymore, and Nero being given the chance to screw up won’t change that. (I.e. the tv show writers were lampshading the problem with this justification).

The other problem within the Graves version is that Claudius isn’t just willing to make Nero his heir over Britannicus so the monarchy will crash and burn, but marries his daughter Octavia to him (which neither Octavia nor Nero are keen on, in this or any other version), and this makes Claudius look far more ruthless towards people he claims to love (i.e. his kids) than the Graves version is supposed to be.

In terms of all the other fictional secret Republicans in movies and tv: most annoying when they’re living centuries later, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius being a case in point. There is absolutely zero indication Marcus Aurelius thought about the Republic at any point of his life, and given we have his “Meditations”, we actually know more about what Marcus Aurelius was thinking than we do of most other Emperors. Graves sells it with Claudius because Claudius never experienced the Republic himself, so can idealize it, and he comes off age when it’s not yet a given that the Principate of Augustus will remain something permanent; that only finalizes when the Senate first confirms Tiberius and then Caligula, whose reigns are anything but a reccomendation for the monarchy. But by the time Marcus Aurelius lives, there has been no other state system but the monarchy anywhere for centuries, and the big question is only “adopt or make my bio son the heir?” Not “Republic?”

Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic

[cahn]

and Britannicus essentially says: But Dad, no one wants the Republic anymore, and Nero being given the chance to screw up won’t change that. (I.e. the tv show writers were lampshading the problem with this justification).

Heh.

But by the time Marcus Aurelius lives, there has been no other state system but the monarchy anywhere for centuries, and the big question is only “adopt or make my bio son the heir?” Not “Republic?”

Ah, I see, that makes sense!

Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic

[aella_irene]

Nero pissed off at least two overlapping influential groups in Rome. One of those groups was the Senators (who also produced all the historians) roughly speaking because he thought they were boring old men who didn't do anything except try and stop him doing what he wanted to do.

The other started off as a good thing which became a bad. Following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD it became clear that Rome had been so overcrowded, with so little space between buildings, that once the fire had started there was no hope of stopping it, and a fire had been inevitable. Nero therefore instituted a programme of compulsory purchase (similar to what was done in Lisbon post their earthquake and fire) so that streets could be widened. This meant that the owners of the land lost some of it, and didn't feel they'd been adequately recompensed. Unfortunately, Nero (who had lost his palace in the fire) decided that he too deserved a little treat, and kept a chunk of the land to build his Domus Aurea on, which gave rise to speculation that he'd set the whole thing going so he could build a new palace. (I've seen a reconstruction, the Domus Aurea was very nice...)

The reconstruction of the city also required heavy taxation, and Nero ended up devaluing the currency, which is rarely a good idea. Still, he was immediately popular among the people, partly because, in the immediate aftermath of the fire, gardens and public buildings were opened to refugees, and food was distributed. I think he was also popular amongst the army, who he thought were 'real' Romans, as opposed to those wealthy Senators sitting on their arses saying he couldn't do things and failing to appreciate his mastery of the water organ.

Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic

[cahn]

Unfortunately, Nero (who had lost his palace in the fire) decided that he too deserved a little treat, and kept a chunk of the land to build his Domus Aurea on, which gave rise to speculation that he'd set the whole thing going so he could build a new palace. (I've seen a reconstruction, the Domus Aurea was very nice...)

Ohhhh this makes a lot of sense, both that he might do that and also that this would give rise to speculation!

as opposed to those wealthy Senators sitting on their arses saying he couldn't do things and failing to appreciate his mastery of the water organ.

...water organ??