The Jewish War: Book 3

[cahn]

Last week: The Jews are basically in an abusive relationship with Rome and have no good options; they choose the particular bad option of picking a war with Rome that they can't win. The Romans are terrible. Also continuing discussion here about Britannicus, Messalina, and the Praetorians.

This week: Vespasian comes down like a ton of bricks. That whole !!!! part of Josephus happens, where he gets stuck in the cave with a bunch of others and invents and wins the Josephus problem (well, in the text it says they draw lots, so he doesn't actually really cite what developed into the problem) (*) and surrenders to the Romans once he and another guy are the only ones left, and prophesies to Vespasian that he will become emperor. (selenak: Is it Feuchtwanger's invention to add the nomenclature of Messiah in there too? That definitely... upped the ante.)

(I'll comment more on this tomorrow -- I got done with the reading late and obviously barely got this written.)

Next week: first part of book 4? Where to?

(*) E. wanted to know what I was reading, so I told her about the Josephus problem, and she said, "Real-world applications of math!"

Comments

Emperor vs Messiah

[selenak]

As far as I can tell, Feuchtwanger did add the term "Messiah", HOWEVER here's what good old Suetonius has to say in his Vespasian biography in "Twelve Caesars":

The time had arrived, according to a belief as venerable as it was well established, and which had become general across the East, that a man was fated to come from Judea to rule the world. This prophecy - which subsequent events would reveal to have been foretelling the emergence of a Roman emperor - was interpreted by the Judeans as referring to themselves (...). (T)there was a Judean called Josephus, one of the high-ranking prisoners, who declared in a tone of supreme confidence, even as the chains were going on, that they would soon be struck off on the orders of this same man - who by then would have become Emperor.

So the term "Messiah" isn't used here, but the way Suetonius describes the prophecy itself makes it sound like a bit more than just "the next Emperor". It does sound, to coin a phrase, Messianic. And of course in the novel, the outrageousness of the term "Messiah" is both significant in what it says about Josephus at this point and why Vespasian listens. (And it echoes Justus' earlier comment "God is in Italy" now, which Joseph has subsequently adopted and later forgets who said it first.) (Also Lion Feuchtwanger, writing in the years 1931 -1932, is very aware of both the fact that of course the Christians have interpreted this passage in Suetonius to refer to Jesus and that people declaring themselves or being declared not just a political leader but a saviour are becoming more and more popular in his present.) I'll say a bit more about this part in RL Josephus' writings in my own comments on Book 3. My suggestion for Book 4 is to interrupt at the end of chapter 6 in my translation, which ends with "Despite the Zealotes didn't exactly behave as if they disbelieved the prophecies, they themselves contributed to their fulfillment"(Josephus describing the Zealots as the Worst).

Impressions of Book 3

[selenak]

The introduction of Vespasian is a good compare and contrast case where you actually can tell which part of Josephus is patron flattery and which is hardcore fact, because the way he phrases it when recounting Vespasians career so far, you'd think Vespasian has singlehandedly won the campaigns in Germany and Britain. Whereas in reality, he had served competently in both places, but Suetonius - who is favourably disposed towards Vespasian as well, but writes after all three Flavian emperors are long dead - doesn't mention him being crucial in either campaign, and I don't think Tacitus (also writing post Flavian Emperors) mentions Vespasian at all in his account of how the Romans conquered Britain. Basically the impression of Vespasian pre Judea you get is that he was considered a reliable general who got things done but not a military genius by any means. The Jewish War was the first case where he actually was supreme military commander, not one of several guys subordinated to same.

=> it's not that Josephus wholesale invents a career for Vespasian - he did serve in Germany and Britain, and did get a good but not stellar reputation from this - , but he exaggarates and presents as complimentary as possible. And of course, it's self flattery as well when he has Vespasian the established Awesome consider defeating him, Josephus, as crucial for the war effort and deem him a worthy enemy. Given that this is the part of the tale where he has to explain why he didn't just get captured (which other leaders also did, including the badmouthed by him John of Gischala later), but changed sides, he naturally goes out of his way to both hammer home he totally didn't do that out of fear and self preservation instinct but because of the inevitability of Roman victory combined with Vespasian's awesomeness and divine blessinng.

(Josephus isn't just being flattering about the Romans, though. He gives Titus an entire speech about what worthy and brave opponents the Jews are later in this book.)

Josephus' landscape descriptions of both Galilee and later the Jordan and Lake Genezareth are yet more cases where I thought that the medieval monks must have gotten hearteyes when reading this, because the Bible doesn't do landscape descriptions, and the majority of medieval monks would not have been able to make the pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but here you have a just one generation post Jesus detailed description of how everything looked. Meanwhile, as much as I osmosed Josephus was despised as a renegade through much of Jewish diaspora history, again all these detailed descriptions of Galilee and Judea must have felt precious to read.

Having watched the tv series Masada (starring Peter O'Toole and Peter Strauss) about the siege of same which is still far ahead of us, I noticed that the scriptwriters and/or the author of the novel it's based on included two elements Josephus actually describes for the siege of Jotapata - the besieged Jews, i.e. Josephus himself, conducting psychological warfare against the Romans by soaking clothes with water and hanging it over the walls to demonstrate they have plenty of it (despite this not being true), and the use of pouches filled with earth to strengthen the gates against the Roman battering rams. (This last one also frequently shows up in other historical shows and movies.)

So the way he tells it, Josephus in book three realises the war can't be won once he arrives in Tiberias but has the problem that everyone else wants him to continue fighting, begging him to save them, writing to Jerusalem asking for either another army to help him or a command to withdraw/surrender doesn't get results, either, and so he ends up in the Jotapata siege and after a brave defense in that cave where by sheer coincidence and certainly not because he fixed it (which in Feuchtwanger he does, and my edition has a footnote my translator also assuming he did) he ends up as one of the last two surviving whereupon he finally is able to leave and surrender to the Romans alive.

Now, as with the Vespasian biography, I don't think he made any of this up from scratch, not least because again, he writes relatively closely to the events with a lot of other survivors able to contradict him if he goes completely against the truth. But of course he slants in his favour and exaggerates. Which probably isn't entirely calculated, either, not least because it must have been an incredibly traumatic experience, followed up by even more traumatic experiences culminating in the destruction of the Temple and the burning of Jerusalem. In order to live with himself, he HAS to believe he tried his best for as long as he could.

Also, let's not forget that before Jotapata, he describes Vespasian conquering places where he kills every male not a child and enslaves the women and children wholesale. Given this, I can believe a lot of Galileans thought surrendering to the Romans was not an option and they had nothing to lose by insisting on a continued fight, and then there is the end time mentality around in this era. Add to this group mentality, and I can see Josephus ending up in a situation much as he describes (without him being the bravest and his defeat crucial to the Roman war effort), i.e. trapped between everyone around them in a "death before surrender" mentality where he is aware they might kill him if he voices the wish to surrender. With the wish to survive finally prompting him to trick the other people hidden in the tunnel into killing themselves, and then, once captured by the Romans, makes his prophecy to ensure he won't be regarded as one more prisoner probably destined for the mines.

Which brings me to the prophecy and what it says about Vespasian and Josephus both. Because with hindsight and the awareness of what is to come - the year of the Four Emperors, and in the longer term the increasing habit of generals to make themselves Emperor - it's very easy to overlook that what Josephus says here, and the fact Vespasian is impressed by it, is absolutely extraordinary. Because within the Prinicipate, i.e. from Augustus to Nero, there hasn't been a succession by general. Every single Emperor so far who succeeded the previous one was related both a mixture of adoption and blood. Not by right of conquest. And Nero is still alive. What's more, he is young, far younger than Vespasian - Nero is only in his early 30s - , and he has proven he can sire children (even though none survived yet). I.e. at this point, there is absolutely no reason to believe Nero will not produce a biological heir, or that he won't outlive Vespasian by decades. If Nero lives, there is no way Vespasian will become Emperor. Not even marriage into the Julio-Claudian family would be an option anymore, because at this point, there aren't any surviving female members around, either. Sure, in theory, the younger Nero could adopt the older Vespasian, but why the hell should he? So to say to Vespasian "you will be Emperor" (never mind Messiah) is basically rolling the dice in a completely crazy way and risking being executed on the spot for high treason, because you as good as declared the need for a quick death of the reigning Emperor. People who were Roman nobility and not Jewish war captives have been executed for far less.

But Vespasian doesn't execute him. Or laughs it off. Vespasian, so far good old mediocre reliable old war horse Vespasian, evidently must have felt seen, must have felt this incredible ambition within himself. Since when? We'll never know. But it's worth pointing out that Vespasian somehow managed to get his oldest son raised as a companion to Britannicus the son of Emperor Claudius. And that his life partner Caenis is the freedwoman and former private secretary of Claudius' mother Antonia. It was Caenis who actually wrote the letter Antonia (daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia) dictated that finally prompted Tiberius to turn against his former bff Sejanus. Caenis had a front row seat to the bloody wiping each other out that the Claudians and Julians did for decades. Once doesn't have to stretch the imagination too much to speculate on Caenis and Vespasian having conversations about what would and could happen if at some point, where were no more Julio-Claudians. But only among themselves because Nero at this point has proven he will kill anyone he feels threatened by, up to and including his mother. He certainly wouldn't hesitate with someone like Vespasian (who has already unintentionally insulted him by falling asleep when Nero was singing).

=> Vespasian keeping Josephus around after such a prophecy was spoken out loud with witnesses to hear who could potentially report it to Nero was also an incredibly risky gamble, and makes me consider that Josephus' command of Jotapata must have been at least partly impressive so that Vespasian doesn't regard him as a total nobody.

Josephus also credits Titus with speaking for him to his father because they were the same age and Titus was supposedly both impressed and felt sorry for him. Aside from again flattery to his current day Flavian patron, I could see the essence of this being true. And Titus had a very personal reason to not feel sorry at all when imagining Nero's sudden demise, given as a teenager he witnessed the death of his friend Britannicus.