From Eusebius in the fourth century to Frederic Raphael in the twenty-first, Josephus has always been a subject of intense biographical interest. His historical, polemical and autobiographical works have been scrutinised time and again, and the enormous resulting bibliography has become a subject of scholarship in itself. What stimulates interest most of all is the Jewish historian's life in Rome after 71, but it is as true now as it was 85 years ago that ‘of his thirty or more years in Rome there is little to record’ (H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian [1929], p. 15). In the absence of new evidence, can any progress be made? D.H. thinks it can.
His book, developed from a doctoral thesis for York University, Toronto, is an excellent piece of work in many ways. Intelligently organised and well written, with a very thorough scholarly apparatus of bibliography and indexes, it provides a clear, systematic and judiciously argued analysis of the modern literature. For newcomers to the field it will be a precious resource.
However, d.H. aims to provide more than just a critical survey. ‘While the past two decades have seen a dramatic increase in interest in Josephus’ Roman context, the field is by no means clear, nor have the avenues for enquiry been exhausted’–and he goes on to note ‘the absence of a systematic consideration of the social circumstances of Josephus’ life in the city of Rome, a void the present study hopes to fill’ (p. 18). The aim is ‘to establish as clearly as possible Josephus’ social location in the city of Rome’, and to provide ‘not only a picture of Josephus in Rome but also a window through which to analyze his narratives’ (p. 26). But it is not self-evident that system and clarity are in themselves sufficient to generate new insights.
A sensible chapter on the likely effects of Josephus’ diplomatic visit to Rome in 63 is followed by thorough assessments of his relations with Vespasian and Titus, concluding unsurprisingly that ‘there is little to support the view that Josephus served as the official court historian and much that suggests otherwise’ (p. 187). Similarly, the chapter on Josephus and Domitian is ‘focused on establishing that Josephus was not a cosseted member of the Flavian court’ (p. 252), though it is a long time since anyone has seriously suggested that he was. The final chapter ‘attempt[s] to reconstruct the social circles within which Josephus did find a place’ (p. 252), and of course can only do so by scrutinising yet again the familiar passages about those to whom he presented the War (Against Apion 1.50–2, Life 361–7) and those who encouraged him to write the Antiquities (Ant. 1.8), eked out with a priori argument about whom else the historian may have known. Much is made of Pliny's evidence about recitationes, but since Josephus refers at one point to selling his work (Against Apion 1.51), it is not obvious that his social position can be inferred from the literary habits of wealthy senators.
In the end, it can only be guesswork. ‘The hints in his narratives regarding the distribution of his works suggest that he made a concerted effort to reach the highest levels of Roman society … At the same time, while these individuals remain a possibility as recipients and purchasers of the War, there is no evidence to suggest that Josephus moved in the same social circles as any of these figures’ (p. 279). Quite so. D.H. is rightly concerned to keep possibilities open: even when he allows himself a contentious opinion (‘At its most basic level the Antiquities was subversive literature’, p. 245), within a few pages he is offering something quite different (‘Josephus … could count himself among the many imperial clients as a direct recipient of imperial favour’, p. 250). That even-handedness does him credit; but the absence of hard evidence that makes it necessary also makes it impossible to give firm judgements one way or the other.
D.H. is uncomfortably conscious of this in his conclusion. ‘The novelty of the inquiry was not that the elements that made up the investigation had not been discussed or examined previously, for that was clearly not the case, but it was the comprehensiveness of the question and, consequently, the investigation that determined its uniqueness … [W]hen a range of possibilities is presented without hope of determining what really happened, this is not a failure to reach the goal. Rather, the journey is the destination’ (p. 305). But there is no need to be defensive. The book is valuable in its own terms, limited though they inevitably are. D.H. has not given us anything new, but in the absence of fresh evidence that could not have been expected anyway. Instead, he has provided a detailed and well-informed assessment of what the evidence we do have can and cannot tell us.
The aim, as he says at the end, ‘was not to claim any greater certainty in our reconstruction of Josephus’ social situation in the city of Rome, but to assist us in imagining the possibilities, in exercising our historical imagination’ (p. 305). That may not be quite what the reader was invited to expect at the outset, but it's a very fair description of what this useful work of scholarship achieves.
