The Jewish War: Book 7

[cahn]

The last book!

Last week: Astrological phenomena and the star of Bethlehem. Messianic (?) prophecy about Vespasian. Brutality of the siege, and discussion of the law of war protecting prisoners from the enemy army (or lack thereof). Imperator.

This week: Book 7. Wrapping up of the war. The Masada fortress and group suicide (which I think is interesting to think about given the discussion we had a few books back). The temple of Onias. (Dedicated commment threads for both of these below, for anyone who wants to join in!)

Yay book club, thank you everyone!

Comments

Recap

[cahn]

Caesar ordered the army to raze to the ground the whole city and the temple, leaving the towers and some of the wall.

Titus tells his troops how great they are, in a passage that really hits weirdly to me right after all this devastation (probably way less weird to Roman readers). Simon hides away in underground tunnels but eventually realizes his food is running out and comes out and gets caught. This sounds very like what Josephus did before but in his case is "just retribution for the cruelty shown to his fellow-citizens under his own merciless despotism." (I guess Josephus points out that the difference here is that Simon put people to death for doing the same thing before, whereas presumably Josephus didn't.)

Meanwhile, Jews in Antioch, Syria are having issues. There are a lot of Jews in Syria at this time. This (high-ranking Jewish) guy Antiochus, right after war is declared (and Vespasian sailed for Syria), says there's a conspiracy to burn down the city. Jews who don't convert as proof of their non-conspirator nature are killed. Guess who gets to become dictator of all the remaining Jews. Anyway, that was obviously a bit of a while back, but then an actual fire breaks out and Antiochus blames the Jews. But it turns out to be criminals being pressed for their debts who thought that if they burnt the market and the public records they could not be pursued for repayment, which, okay, I honestly think is kind of hilarious, or would be if it hadn't got blamed on other people. Way to make things worse, guys.

Meanwhile, Vespasian goes to Rome and everyone loves him. Josephus also talks about Vespasian having an "outstanding military record," to which the footnote says, "now that the contquest of Judaea could be added to his military achievements in Britain in AD43-4... over a quarter of a century earlier," which I also kind of think is blackly hilarious.

Meanwhile (Josephus really does seem to jump around a lot in this chapter! I guess there's a lot of stuff happening in different places) Germans are revolting. Because they hate Romans but also they are incapable of any sober assessment and ready to rush into action with minimal chance of success. (Sorry, selenak!) Domitian Caesar, who clearly did not have the reputation then that I have in my brain, courageously set off to confront the barbarians at which point they collapse and surrender. Their fear of him proved their salvation, allowing them to accept reimposition of the same yoke without disastrous loss. Hmm Josephus are you trying to make a point maybe?? Also the Sarmatians attack but are quickly dealt with.

Titus' triumphal procession goes through Antioch, and they ask if they can expel their Jews. He says no, because "their own country, to which as Jews they would have to be repatriated, has been destroyed, and no other place would now accept them." Ouch. That's... ouch. Anyway, he leaves and goes through Jerusalem again and is sad. he would never have wished the terrible consequences of their punishment to be the public face of his character. This does hit interestingly if we assume, as selenak mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that it's written at least partially to Berenice... anyway, he continues on to Alexandria, and from there sails to Rome to much acclamation, the spectacle of which Josephus describes for a while. (My favorite bit, unsurprisingly: transparent gems, worked into golden crowns or other settings, were carried past in such a plethora of examples that we realized how wrong we had been to assume the rarity of any of them.) Simon is carried thence and executed.

Josephus: Now let's talk about Machaerus.
Me: What? Why?
Helpful footnote: The focus of the narrative shifts back to Judaea and the military operations to eradicate remaining areas of rebellion. These campaigns involved considerable Roman forces, but, since the emepror had already proclaimed victory over Judaea, Roman propaganda was silent about them, and they are known only from the account by Josephus in Bellum Judaicum. The description of the triumph and celebrations in Rome would have worked well as the culmination of the history of the war, and it is puzzling that Josephus chose to continue the story --
Me: That's what I'm saying!
Selena: Yes, but what about Masada?
Helpful footnote: -- Ahem -- Josephus had noted already at 4.555 that Herodium, Masada, and Machaerus remained in rebel hands in May AD 69 after other fortresses had been captured and the way was clear to attack Jerusalem.
Me: Okay.

Anyway... the new legate to Judaea, Bassus, is sent to attack the Machaerus fortress and take it out. Josephus tells us cool natural history of the place, including the root Baaras with demon-expulsion properties but which you can't touch without dying. (So you pick it by geting a dog to touch it instead. Then it's OK.) Anyway, this dude Eleazar gets carried off by the Romans, and Bassus convinces them to surrender the fortress in exchange for the guy's life. Eleazar asks them to and also to save their own lives as well by submitting to the power and the destiny of Rome -- and the Jews uncharacteristically gave in to compassion -- mm. Josephus definitely has no feelings himself about this whole thing. Yes. Anyway. I am unsure as to what happens next because Josephus needs to give me more pronoun antecedents, but I think there are non-Jewish (?) people in the lower town who learn of the surrender thing and they decide to run for freedom. Those people get away, but everyone else gets massacred except for the people Bassus made the agreement with. Anyway... there's another bunch of escapees from Jerusalem and Machaerus at the forest called Jardes, and Bassus cuts down the trees and kills all the Jews. Titus takes all Jewish land for his own private state.

In Vespasian's fourth year as emperor: the governor of Syria (Paetus) says the king of Commagene, Antiochus (a differnt one from above), wants to revolt. So Paetus puts it down and Antiochus runs away, eventually ending up in Rome and reconciling with Caesar. Also the Alani go on a raid. I have not the faintest idea what this bit has to do with anything, and neither do the notes.

OK, now Bassus dies and is replaced as governor by Flavius Silva. Silva marches against Masada, occupied by the Sicarii and headed by another guy named Eleazar. We get some history of Masada, which Herod put a lot of supplies into to prepare against Cleopatra (that floozy, as we've discussed -- Antony's "miserably slavish infatuation" for her mentioned) and/or the Jewish people wanting to depose him (neither of these actually having happened). After some back and forth, Silva decides to set fire to the wall, which almost goes badly for the Romans but then the wind changes and the fire engulfs the wall. Eleazar decides all must die (and of course makes a speech about it). I'll write a separate comment about that, in case lannamichaels or anyone else decides to step in. So anyway, they go ahead and go with the whole group suicide thing, with a different lottery rule than the one Josephus used: ten of them being the executioner for the rest, then one of them to kill the ten remaining, which is a much less interesting mathematical problem. The last guy sets fire to the whole place. So they all die except for two women, one of whom also managed to save her five children, which... does rather give the lie to Eleazar's "that is what our wives and children implore us to do" rhetoric (again, more on that in the separate comment).

That's Masada. Some of the Sicarii end up in Alexandria and start another revolutionary movement there, which ends up with them captured. Vespasian says to demolish the temple in Alexandria that cenozoicsynapsid noted was mentioned in Book 1, and I'll have another comment about that (with cenozoicsynapsid's comment linked) because I'm hoping to get seekingferret to chime in as he just recently posted about the temple of Onias! The governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, Catullus, accuses some Jews of sedition and kills a bunch of them; the accused include Josephus, which I feel must be a big reason why this even shows up in the first place, as it seems like a weird place to end the book. But there it ends. The success of its literary expression must be left to the judgement of its readers, but as for its accuracy, I would not hesitate to claim with confidence that throughout the whole narrative I have aimed at nothing but the truth.

Re: Recap

[selenak]

The late sedition accusation is indeed a weird place to end this and only explainable by Josephus himself being among the accused. Then again: The whole series of progroms against Jewish minorities in other Middle Eastern countries was carrying depressing echoes (foreshadowing?) throughout (later) history. Young Domitian only having to appear for any conspiring Germans to collapse and change their plans, by contrast, was hilarious. I mean, I knew he was there later after having become Emperor, I’ve seen some tombstones in the Cologne museum (as I vaguely recall, one of a soldier and one of a cook, both referencing Domitian), and Suetonius (not a fan) claims Emperor Domitian’s German campaign was basically just because he wanted to match dead brother Titus in military glory. But that he made a Germany trip already at the start of his Dad’s reign is news to me. Josephus is laying it on really thick there in his attempt to flatter all three Flavians, methinks. Or maybe he’s already in contact with his later patroness, Domitian’s wife (whom Feuchtwanger calls Lucia because her real name was Domitia)?

The difference between Simon and Josephus: with you there, presumably that Simon had lots of people executed for doing the very same thing. And of course, according to Josephus (with the caveat that implies), having in general led a despotic terrorist regime over frightened Jerusalem citizens until the end of the siege.

This last book also contains more mentions of the war prisoners being executed in the context of games. We’ve gotten so used to the Roman Games via media over saturation in their depiction, but it is worth pointing out this particular “entertainment” was and is extremely dehumanizing even in a world that accepts the death penalty as standard and just. And alas I suspect were someone to reintroduce it, a la The Hunger Games, many of today’s people would totally go for it.

Putting off my cynical hat again, I’ll say more about Masada in reply to your other comment, but let me add here that the very fact that one fortress kept holding out after Vespasian had already declared victory must have been indeed majorly embarassing from a Roman pov, especially given Vespasian is still new on the throne and that his only justification for the job lies in his military strength, and the fictionalized depiction in the “Masada” tv series gets some drama from this, in terms of the pressure Silva is under. I’ve been to Masada, and when you’re on the top, you can actually still see the outlines of the three Roman camps.

Re: Recap

[cahn]

The whole series of progroms against Jewish minorities in other Middle Eastern countries was carrying depressing echoes (foreshadowing?) throughout (later) history.

Yes, absolutely :/

Young Domitian only having to appear for any conspiring Germans to collapse and change their plans, by contrast, was hilarious... Josephus is laying it on really thick there in his attempt to flatter all three Flavians, methinks.

Yes! :)

I’ve been to Masada, and when you’re on the top, you can actually still see the outlines of the three Roman camps.

Oh wow.

Re: Recap

[cenozoicsynapsid]

Not only the siege camps remain visible, but also the "snake path" and the Roman siege road to the top. It's an extremely arid area and there is no civilian reason for anyone to live there, so I think the site is relatively well preserved. Nowadays it's a major tourist site, and a kind of Zionist shrine, with the Zealots envisioned as proto-Zionists. I believe Israeli elite regiments used to (or still do?) finish their training by climbing Masada in the dark, and swearing in at dawn on the plateau.

Re: Recap

[cahn]

Oh huh that's really interesting! And I guess also dovetails well with Josephus' rendition of how the site and all the supplies from Herod's time were still all preserved.

Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[cahn]

Interestingly to our previous discussion, Eleazar talks about "our wives dying unmolested, our children innocent of slavery" and also talks about them feeling almost delight at thinking of "such a noble death" -- maybe that "unmolested" and "noble" is Roman culture speaking? Or: of course Josephus is not in favor of this, so who knows but that he is just giving Eleazar words he doesn't agree with?

Another bit: "Let us die unenslaved by the enemy, and let us all, together with our children and wives, leave this life as free men. This is what our law prescribes, this is what our wives and children implore us to do." Okay, now that I know from cenozoicsynapsid and lannamichaels that the law actually forbids this rather than prescribes it, I have got to think that Josephus is just giving Eleazar the villain role here, perhaps in a way that a Roman would not twig to but that a Jewish person would?? Maybe??

I also think this bit is interesting. "Despite the warmth of family affection which was still strong in all of them, reason -- that this was the best option for their loved ones -- triumphed over emotion." Mm-hmm.

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[selenak]

So, Eleazar’s suicide speech, and the mass suicide of Masada in general. On the one hand, Romans considered suicide a noble end. Including when their enemies do it. There is a famous ode by Horace celebrating the victory over Cleopatra which bashes her for two thirds and then does a 180 degree turnaround and credits her with a noble mind and resolve when she kills herself, “non humilis mulier”, a woman without lowness. And we’ve talked about how Otho’s suicide made both Suetonius and Tacitus go - wow, Otho, who would have thought that you had such nobility in you? And even definitely-described-as-villains types in Roman histories like Catiline in Sallust’s account of the Catiline conspiracy get credited with courage and a noble final death (not buy suicide, but by battle), complete with a heroic last speech to his men encouraging them to fight that final battle. Not to mention Tacitus in his Agricola gives the famous “they create a devastation and call it peace” anti Roman imperialism speech to a Scottish chiftain. There is precedent and tropes in terms of Roman readership, is what I am saying.

Otoh: it’s a mass suicide, and whether the kids, for starters, were all eager to get killed is highly dubious. As you point out, a woman hiding herself with her children is the living counter example to Eleazar really convincing everyone. And as far as we’ve heard, Jewish law would forbid this. So yes, I think it’s entirely possible Josephus means it as an indictement of Eleazar as a villain, but knows it will be read as such only by his Jewish readers.

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[cahn]

*nods* Yes, I definitely got that sense from your comments in previous posts! (as well as random osmosis :) ) So I was definitely thinking a Roman readership would vibe with that... but yeah. Remind me, I think this was primarily pitched to a Roman audience, but he expected a lot of Jewish readers as well, presumably?

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[cenozoicsynapsid]

The introduction said that there might have been a more Jewish-targeted edition in Aramaic, but that there's no manuscript evidence that it existed. Given the extent of the diaspora communities described, there would probably have been Jews who preferred to read it in Greek, though.

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[cahn]

*nods* excellent, thanks!

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[selenak]

Btw, briefly, due to lack of time: my review of the tv miniseries Masada, and one example of the view of the Roman camp from the Masadra fortress.

Re: Eleazar's speech praising suicide

[cahn]

Ooh, thanks for the pics! The miniseries also sounds fascinating.

The Temple of Onias

[cahn]

Link to cenozoicsynapsid's comment about it in the first book

seekingferret just mentioned it here: https://seekingferret.dreamwidth.org/450404.html

I'm just going to cut and paste Josephus' whole thing about the temple of Onias here. (I don't actually have a ton to say myself, but maybe others will??)

Wary of the Jews’ constant appetite for revolution, and fearing the possibility of another concentration of Jewish resistance which could draw in others too, Caesar instructed Lupus to demolish the temple which the Jews possessed in the district named after Onias.

422 This is a place in Egypt which was settled and given its name under the following circumstances. 423 Onias the son of Simon was one of the chief priests at Jerusalem. He had to make his escape when Antiochus, the king of Syria, launched his campaign against the Jews, and he came to Alexandria, where Ptolemy, a sworn enemy of Antiochus, gave him a friendly welcome. Onias told Ptolemy that he could bring the whole Jewish nation into alliance with him if he would agree to a proposal he had to make. 424 The king promised to do whatever was in his power, and Onias then asked him for permission to build a temple somewhere in Egypt where God could be worshipped in the ancestral Jewish tradition. 425 This, he said, would make the Jews yet more hostile to Antiochus, who had sacked their temple in Jerusalem, and more friendly to himself: large numbers would flock to him to enjoy freedom of worship.

426 Ptolemy was persuaded by this proposal, and granted Onias a site twenty miles from Memphis in the borough of Heliopolis. 427 Here Onias built a fort, and then constructed his temple out of huge stones, not on the pattern of the Jerusalem temple, but more like a tower, rising to a height of 90 feet. 428 He designed the altar, though, to replicate the one in his home country, and equipped his temple with similar fittings, except for the design of the lampstand: 429 instead of a fixed stand he had a lamp made out of gold which gave its light suspended from a golden chain. 430 The whole precinct was enclosed by a wall of baked brick, with gateways built of stone. The king also granted Onias a large estate to generate an income which would provide ample maintenance for the priests and many other of the requisites for the worship of God. 431 In all this, though, there was nothing altruistic in Onias’ motive. Still harbouring a grudge for his exile, his aim was to set up as a rival to the Jerusalem Jews, and he thought that the establishment of this temple would act as a magnet to attract the ordinary people away from them. 432 And there had been an ancient prediction made some 600 years earlier by the prophet called Isaiah, who foretold the provision of this temple in Egypt by a man of Jewish birth. So that was how the temple came to be built.

433 On receipt of Caesar’s written instructions Lupus, the governor of Alexandria, proceeded to the temple, and after removing some of the offerings dedicated there shut up the building. 434 Lupus died shortly afterwards and was replaced in office by Paulinus. He stripped the temple completely of its offerings, threatening the priests with severe consequences if they did not produce them all, forbade any access to the precinct by intending worshippers, 435 then locked the gates and made the whole site a prohibited area, so not even a vestige of divine worship was now left in the place. 436 The time from the building of the temple to its closure was 343 years.

Re: The Temple of Onias

[seekingferret]

https://www.sefaria.org/Menachot.109b.10

The Gemara in Menachos 109b brings two versions of the story of Onias establishing his temple, neither of which wholly matches Josephus's version, but there are consistencies and ways you could triangulate the different versions. Of course none of the people telling these stories were around when Onias lived, Onias was some two hundred years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and not long before the Maccabee revolt. So some intersection of religious sectarianism, political infighting, and personal rivalries led to the establishment of this temple which was not accepted by mainstream Jews in Israel but clearly had some sectarian acceptance.

The fact that the Talmud brings two completely contradictory versions of the story suggests the Rabbis were not sure what to do with this text, and the debate in Masechet Megillah that cenozoicsynapsid linked to ( https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.10a.4?lang=bi) is further evidence of the confusion. In Masechet Zevachim ( https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim.112b.9 ) the Rabbis clearly present their concept of Shechutei Chutz, the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside of authorized altars, and there is no room for an Egyptian temple- the Pharisaic teleology is entirely focused on Jerusalem. In Megillah, R" Yitzchak's heter suggests maybe this Telos doesn't come to fruition until the Third Temple and in the meantime when a central altar does not exist maybe Israel can revert to offering sacrifices on other sanctified altars, or bamot. But this was anathema and is wholly rejected. (And R" Yitzchak was in Babylonia and probably never went to Egypt, so at best he's reporting a distant rumor)

But in the wake of the destruction of the Temple and the complete renegotiation of Jewish ritual practice, you can understand why there might be some who longed for the continuity presented by the Egyptian temple in terms of preserving the sacrificial rite.

Of course this is not the path R" Yochanan be Zakkai and his reconstituted Sanhedrin took the Jewish people. They centered rituals where prayer replaced sacrificial worship. My sense has always been that this was a transition that was already somewhat in the cards even before the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem and there are parts of the Onias story that support that, such as the narrative of High Priest Shimon being the last generation to use the name of God in the Yom Kippur service. The sacrificial rite was becoming less effective and central and especially to Pharisaic Judaism it was not the main power base. But Josephus's version highlights the other dimension. R"Yochanan Ben Zakkai emphasized replacement of the sacrificial rite because after the destruction of the Temple it was not safe to offer sacrifices to the God of the Jews even in private altars, because the Romans saw this as rebellious behavior. So the Jews had to find a ritual practice that was sustaining and connected to historical practice while threading the needle of not looking like they were trying to reconstitute the Jerusalemite rite.

Re: The Temple of Onias

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I'm late doing my homework this week, so I'll make a fuller post later, but thanks seekingferret for the additional references. It's interesting that you say that the sacrificial rite was becoming less effective and central. It's actually sort of odd; although we think of a text-based faith as "modern" and a sacrificial faith as "ancient", in that era, sacrifices were absolutely the gold-standard norm for a religion. The Romans had temples everywhere, of course, but so did everyone else--- sacrifices were so ubiquitous that I believe in some communities, there was pretty much no "normal" slaughter for meat--- *everything* was a sacrifice. (Which I believe is the import of Paul's discussion in Corinthians of whether Christians could eat it. Jews obviously can't!)

I had always imagined R' Yohanan making a radical break with the way Judaism and pretty much any other religion worked. But perhaps the number of diaspora communities (or just people far from Jerusalem) who couldn't get to the temple very often would inevitably have pushed towards a decentralized version of the religion? Maybe if the temple wasn't destroyed, we'd end up with something like the Muslims with their Hajj--- a trip everyone makes once or twice in a lifetime, but the lived experience of the religion happens elsewhere? Or what do you think is the reason why sacrifice fell out of fashion?

Re: The Temple of Onias

[cahn]

This is so fascinating! I think it's particularly interesting that it's the story in which Onias was the jealous one where his temple was dedicated to the worship of God, but not the other way around. What does that mean?

Of course this is not the path R" Yochanan be Zakkai and his reconstituted Sanhedrin took the Jewish people. They centered rituals where prayer replaced sacrificial worship. My sense has always been that this was a transition that was already somewhat in the cards even before the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem and there are parts of the Onias story that support that, such as the narrative of High Priest Shimon being the last generation to use the name of God in the Yom Kippur service. The sacrificial rite was becoming less effective and central and especially to Pharisaic Judaism it was not the main power base.

Ooh. This is really interesting (as well as not something I would have ever figured out for myself). Like cenozoicsynapsid, I'm also interested in what you think about the reasons for this?

But Josephus's version highlights the other dimension. R"Yochanan Ben Zakkai emphasized replacement of the sacrificial rite because after the destruction of the Temple it was not safe to offer sacrifices to the God of the Jews even in private altars, because the Romans saw this as rebellious behavior.

*nods*

Re: The Temple of Onias

[cenozoicsynapsid]

This is so fascinating! I think it's particularly interesting that it's the story in which Onias was the jealous one where his temple was dedicated to the worship of God, but not the other way around. What does that mean?

I don't know! But I agree, it's fascinating. It seems pretty implausible that a would-be High Priest wouldn't be instructed on the vestments he had to wear. The vestments are specified in the Torah, he'd have seen the High Priest wearing them in previous years, and anyway, as we discussed with respect to the Zealots' stooge priest, it seems like the families who were of High-Priestly rank had their sons educated for the position. As seekingferret says, the story is from long after Onias's time; in fact, this is evidence that it's from fairly long after the destruction of the temple. The attribution to Rabbi Meir is consistent with that, as he was a disciple of Akiva (so, later than the *third* Roman-Jewish war). So the story is probably meant to teach us something, rather than communicate a legitimate history about Onias... but I can't tell what.

Re: The Temple of Onias

[cahn]

So the story is probably meant to teach us something, rather than communicate a legitimate history about Onias...

It really does seem like it, with the two contradictory stories that end up in opposite places with the two brothers, but I don't know what I'm supposed to learn from it either? That good things can come from not-so-great beginnings, and vice versa?

[cenozoicsynapsid]

So, what do we read next? (Is there a different thread for that?)

I'd be happy with anything, but here are some suggestions of books I personally have not read but might want to, along with the themes they'd carry forward:

* Against Verres (mistreatment of provincials)
* The Golden Ass (religion)
* The Peloponnesian War (war)
* The Enchiridion of Epictetus (human misery)

[cahn]

Ooooh, I'm totally psyched you want to continue! Good question! So... I absolutely have to take a break from Classics book club until, well, for at least a month but possibly until August (probably not until August, at least I hope not) because I have done... not very much... Hugo reading and I need to do that!

I am cross now because I am fairly positive that I have Graves' translation of The Golden Ass somewhere and I cannot find it, or at least it's not in either of the two places on the bookshelf that it would be sensible for it to be. Anyway that would be my vote for the next one, partially because I'm now interested in Robert Graves again via WWI, and partially because that book was a gift which I either have not read but should have, or read but remember absolutely nothing about it including whether I had actually read it (most likely this one), and either way it would be nice if I had both read it and remembered something about it.

I'd also love to do one or more of the plays sometime -- I had a bunch recommended to me which I can't remember right now but which sound really fun, and we could get different translations and compare.

[cenozoicsynapsid]

The plays, as I understand it, basically sort into four piles:

* Greek tragedy: Aeschylus (or if you're serenak, Aischylos), Sophocles and Euripides (I don't remember the Greek transliterations, I'm sure someone will remind me). One of those annoying sets of books that feel cliched because everyone has ransacked them for parts for literal millenia, but you're disgusted to find out they're as good as everyone says.

* Aristophanes: Pretty much the sole survivor of the Old Comedy. Still really funny, unlike his successors, the...

* New Comedy: encompassing a bunch of Greek authors but also most of the surviving Latin comedies. Direct ancestor of those Shakespeare plays where people keep mistaking lookalikes for one another (notably Two Gentlemen of Verona but also bits of Twelfth Night and so on), and to the musical A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Full of cornball jokes and stock characters; tends to come across as a bit tedious to modern readers.

* Roman tragedy: Ancestral to Titus Andronicus, Tis Pity She's a Whore, and stuff like that. I haven't read any of these, but from what I've heard: oceans of gore, heartfelt speeches on all sides, no piece of scenery unchewed.

[cahn]

Hee. I think it was mostly the Greek tragedy that people were reccing to me, and that I'm interested in reading. Maybe Aristophanes too.

[selenak]

Of these, I always wanted to try the Golden Ass at some point. (Most lengthy Roman novel preserved to us, Cahn.)

Of books I have read but would not mind rereading:

- Ted Hughes: Tales from Ovid. (I.e. his selection from Ovid's Metamorphoses , which I love)

- The Oresteia (i.e. Aischylos' three plays about the House of Atreus), since Cahn asked about plays

- Suetonius: Twelve Caesars (the new Tom Holland translation which I was kindly gifted last Christmas) (sensationalist gossip!)


I'll probably think of more, but must rush off now!

[cahn]

I'd be interested in all of these too! It might be interesting to read the Hughes in a reading group -- I'm sure I'd learn a lot :)

[selenak]

In order not to scream out my bias, I shall make yet another suggestion: Herodotus aka "The Father of History" is another author I've always wanted to tackle, more so than Thucydides, if only because T sneered about H that he was a mere story-teller.

[cahn]

I mean I'm good with all of these but why NOT scream out your bias? :D

I think my top votes right now are a) Golden Ass, since it sounds like all three of us would be interested in it and have not read it (except for possibly me?? lol) and b) Oresteia, since I have not personally read it but it does seem like one of those things I Need to read (I suppose I'm spoiled for a lot of it anyway, haha), and both you and cenozoicsynapsid like it.