8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
1/72
At Play Seriously:
Irony and Ironic Humour in the V itaof JosephusSteve Mason, York University
SBL Josephus Seminar, Denver, November 2001
DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT CONSULTATIONAPOLOGIES FOR LENGTH!
It is also necessary that he [sc. the great man, ] be bothcandid about hatred and candid about affection, because concealmentimplies fearbeing careless of the truth in favour of reputation; and thathe speak and act candidly, for in view of his disdain [for others opinions]he is frank and truthful, except of course whatever [he says] by way of irony, tothe masses.
(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics3.28; 1124b, line 1)
Extreme fear took hold of us as we saw the populace with weapons. In aquandary as to what we should do ourselves, unable to halt therevolutionaries, and given the clear and present danger to us, we begansayingthat we concurred with their opinions. . . .
(Josephus, Life22)
Critical scholarship has long been intrigued by the double
gameprosecuting the war while asserting friendship with Romethat
Josephuss Vitapresents him as playing while he was commander of Galilee in
early 67. In our post-Enlightenment sincerity, we have assumed that his
admission of duplicity must have been embarrassing to him, and therefore
forced upon him. The universally accepted candidate for the main provocation is
Justus of Tiberiass account of the war, which is thought to have challenged
Josephuss, and therefore put him on the defensive (Schrer 1901-11: I. 59, 97;
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
2/72
2
Niese 1896: 228-29; Niese 1914: 575; Luther 1910: 8, 65-81; Laqueur 1970 [1920]:
44-55, 75-83; Drexler 1925: 293-312; Thackeray 1967 [1929]: 5-12; Schalit 1933: 67-
95; Gelzer 1952: 89; Shutt 1961: 6; Rajak 1973; Barish 1978: 64; Cohen 1979: 126-28;
Mason 1991: 316-24).1Justus, the theory goes, adduced evidence to show that the
avowedly Rome-friendly Josephus had in fact been a fomenter of rebellion, a
warlord, in Tiberias and elsewhere (cf. V 340, 350). Extrapolation from the few
charges that Josephus actually attributes to Justus has rendered his attack the
hidden hand behind Josephuss entire autobiography (esp. Luther 1910). The best
Josephus could produce by way of response was a series of damning new
admissions,2couched in the feeble excuse that he had been forced to conceal his
true motives during the early revolt (e.g., V22, 175-76); hence the literary artifice
of the double game.
The argument that the Vitasystematically responds to Justus has further
enticed historians to imagine that in Justuss work, reconstructed through a
mirror-reading of the Vita, we have recovered an independent source. On the
basis of this virtual external evidence we can proceed to build probable historical
scenarios.3
1 An important qualification is that Laqueur, Thackeray, Gelzer, and Cohen all propose that theVitais based upon an administrative account or possibly field notes ( ), written longbefore Justus published his account. In arguing that Josephus reused this earlier material to replyto Justus, however, these scholars still hold that our present Vitaappeared as a response to theTiberian.2For example: he had initially been friends with John of Gischala, his notorious enemy accordingto the War( 43-4, 86), and John in turn had been as well-connected in Jerusalem as Josephus (189-91); Josephus had been eager to undertake such belligerent actions as the removal of imagesfrom the Herodian palace at Tiberias ( 63-5); he had not been appointed general at the outset, asthe Warclaimed, but only as one member of a commission ( 29); he had energetically attackedSyrian cities ( 81) and authorized the building of defensive walls from the sale of royal grain (72-3).3 I phrase this in methodological terms: historical reconstruction normally requires at least twolines of independent evidence (Bloch 1953: 110-13). Most scholars put it in other terms: that theVitais to be trusted in those places where Josephus was forced to admit things by Justus (cf.Luther 1910: 8, 81; Thackeray 1967 [1929]: 5), but this amounts to the same logic: the Vitais not
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
3/72
3
In this essay I mainly presuppose what I have argued elsewhere: that the
Vitadoes not work as a response to Justus. If Justuss account had placed
Josephus in jeopardy, and the Vitawas his defence, then he was in trouble. The
book does not deal critically with any significant aspect of his past, nor bother to
defend his War. To the contrary, he takes a novel approach to the period in
question and contradicts the Warin almost every case, even in small details,
where the two works overlap (cf. Cohen 1979: 110-11, 126; Mason 2001: 213-22).
A critical audience impressed by Justus could hardly have been won back by
such aggressive carelessness. Further, the structure of the Vitadoes not give any
prominence to Justuss challenge.4And it is hard to see why Josephus, living
comfortably in Rome in the 90s, could have been much threatened by the
Tiberianespecially by claims about his past as a combatant prisoner from the
Judean revolt, which was already well known (cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 5.6; Dio
65.1.4). Laqueurs partial solution to these problems (Laqueur 1970 [1920]: 1-127),
that in response to Justus Josephus lightly reworked an account of his Galilean
administration that he had written for other purposes a quarter of a century
earlier, creates more problems than it solves.5It is simpler to accept that the Vita
itself, rather than a precursor, was written for other purposes; Justuss
provocation was quite incidental.
simply Josephus left to his devices, but Josephus under constraint from a nearly visibleindependent source.4 That is, the introductory and concluding matter (AJ20.266-67; V430) does not mention Justus,to whom Josephus only responds directly in very deliberate excursus near the end of the Vita(336-67). So, in part, Cohen 1979: 121-37; Rajak 1983: 154.5 Laqueurs argument is intricate and cannot be fully examined here. See, however, Thackeray1967 [1929]: 18-19; Schalit 1933 [both arguing that the extant Vitais a stylistic and conceptualunity]; Barish 1978 [rejecting Laqueurs notion that theAntiquitieswas provided with anadditional ending to accompany the final (anti-Justus) Vita]; and more generally Cohen 1979: 18-21, 128-32; Mason 2001: xxx-xxxii. Cohen maintains that Josephus reworks an earlier sketch of hiscareer, but for reasons different from Laqueurs; cf. Mason 2001: xxxii-l.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
4/72
4
Josephus frames this autobiography as an exposition of his character (V
430) on the evidence of his ancestry and curriculum vitae(AJ20.266:
), and this frame matches the content well enough.
After sketching his glorious ancestry and precocious youth, he turns to his public
life (V12), presenting in some detail the five months that, as far as we know,
constituted his most serious claim to military and governmental prominence. His
many hapless opponentsJustus is one of the less visibleare brought forward
in series and dispatched with perceptible glee.6Their vices and abject failures
appear mainly to highlight his virtues (e.g., clemency, perseverance, loyalty,
incorruptible justice, mastery of the passions) through the familiar technique of
polemical contrast ( ).
So the Vitais a true autobiography in the Roman sense, a piece of
epideictic rhetoric inviting praise and blame (Neyrey 1994). In general, we
interpreters of Josephus have overlooked the rhetoricized mentality (Rudich
1993: xxx-xxxi; Rudich 1997: 1-16; cf. Bartsch 1994: 148-93) of his time and place,
which seems crucial for understanding the Vitas rhetorical preoccupations and
its cavalier disregard for historical detail. My goal in this paper is to explore only
one aspect of Josephuss rhetoric in the Vita, namely: irony.
Several recent studies have described the mood of lite society in first-
century Rome as one of thoroughgoing dissimulation (Rudich 1993: xvii-xxiv),
doublespeak (Bartsch 1994: 63-97), or irony. Irony had been widely adopted in
earlier literary contexts (below), but it seems that under the emerging principate
6 So: Josephuss two priestly colleagues (V63, 73); John of Gischala (V70-6, 85-103, 368-72); fatherPistus and son Justus of Tiberias (V34-42, 88, 336-67, 410); the admittedly eminent Simon son ofGamaliel (V189-96); Jonathan and the delegation members (V196-335); cf. Agrippas viceroyVarus (V46-61).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
5/72
5
most performers and authors, including historians, became reflexive ironists:
they routinely said things other than what they meant and expected their
audiences to perceive these indirect signals. Josephuss contemporary Quintilian,
discussing various kinds of rhetorical figures (figurae), observes that in his
timeunder Domitianthe term figure [here: schema]7was all but reserved for
what we would call irony: hence the current abundance of veiled, so-called
figured, controversies (controversiae figuratae). He elaborates on this form of
speech:
It is one [sc. a figure] whereby we excite some suspicion to indicate that
our meaning is other than our words would seem to imply . . . , a hidden
meaning which is left to the hearer to discover (Quintilian 9.2.65).8
The rhetor prescribes three reasons for using this figure: when it is either unsafe
or unseemly to speak frankly, or merely for subtle effect. He repeats that this
manner of discourse is very much in fashion, used with great frequency (qua
nunc utimur plurimum. . . quod et frequentissimum est) in Domitians era.
So candid confrontation was out and irony was in. This point was not lost
on theprincipes, who accordingly became accomplished ironists. They upped the
ante by seeking out sedition in plays, recitals of poetry, gestures, and literary
allusions (figurae) in all genres, trying to censor any uncontrollable subtext,9
though sometimes ignoring potential slights. Playwrights and actors may have
fared worst as victims of such imperial sensitivity: in their case, it was always
7 Quintilian more or less equatesfiguraand schema: cf. 1.8.16; 6.3.70.8 In the part omitted by ellipsis here, Quintilian distinguishes this kind of speech from ironia, butthat is because he (oddly) understands the latter in a narrow sense: saying the oppositeof whatone means.9 I owe the suggestive term to Rudich (1997: 11), who relates that this was the criterion used by aSoviet censor for rejecting an article of his, on the reign of Claudius, for publication in a minorscholarly journal.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
6/72
6
possible that an audiences determination to find topical allusion would itself
generate subversive interpretations that had never been intended (Bartsch 1994:
67-8). The senatorial class was also vulnerable if its members unwisely referred
to precedents from the republican era or from contemporaries already punished
(cf. MacMullen 1966: 1-45).10Evidently Domitian was closely attuned to such
figural representation: he executed Hermogenes of Tarsus for certain allusions
(figurae) in his history (Suetonius, Dom. 10.1), the younger Helvidius Priscus for
having allegedly criticized his divorce in a farce concerning Paris and Oenone
(Dom. 10.4).
Rudich proposes that the cornerstone of the new language structure was
laid by Augustus when he ironically proclaimed a restored republica
diarchic deceit that most of his monarchical successors would propagate anew at
the outset of each new reign (Rudich 1993: xvii, 6, 11-12). It was also Augustus,
supported immediately by Tiberius, who provided an incentive to doublespeak
by extending the capital charge of diminishing the majesty of the Roman
people (maiestas) to include slander of the emperoror perceived slander
(Suetonius,Aug. 55; Tacitus,Ann. 1.72; Dio 57.22.5; cf. Bartsch 1994: 66). Bartsch,
for her part, shows that Cicero had already made much of topical allusion in the
theatre, which was an important aspect of the political climate of the late republic
(1994: 72-3): the great orator remarked that there was never any passage in
10Bartsch (1994: 78-9) gives several examples from Suetonius of persons convicted on the basis oftheir plays (Cal. 27.4; Nero39.3; Dom. 10.4). Otherwise, the senator Cremutius Cordus wasprosecuted in 25 CE on the charge that the praise of Brutus and Cassius in his histories impliedcriticism of Tiberius (Tac.,Ann. 4.34-5). Under Nero, by contrast, Seneca prudently denied Stoicjustification to Caesars assassins (de Ben. 2.20.2). Tacitus reports other examples of sensitivity tothis issue of Caesars killers (Ann. 3.76; 16.7, 22), as does Pliny (Ep. 1.17.3). From at least theautumn of 93, Domitian became adept at reading between the lines. In addition to Hermogenesand Helvidius, mentioned in the text, he executed Rusticus Arulenus and Herennius Senecio for
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
7/72
7
which, if something the poet said seemed to refer to our times, the whole people
did not notice or the actor himself did not insist upon this meaning (Pro Sest.
118). Still, Bartsch identifies Neros move to the stage, from which he could
closely observe the senators in their reserved (and obligatory) seating area, as the
decisive moment from which audience members became actors, both in the
theatre and in life (Bartsch 1994: 1-62).
Throughout the first century, says Rudich, senators increasingly made
peace with the new pretences, though the dissonance between their outward
profession and their real values created a sometimes unbearable tension. It was
unwise to point out the resulting duplicity, however: in 39 CE, according to Dio
(59.18.5), one Titius Rufus committed suicide, having declared that the Senate
thought one thing but propounded another view, and having been scheduled
for trial on account of this impolitic insight (Rudich 1993: xxiii).
Communication within Roman lite circles, or between them and the
princeps, was not the only sphere in which ironic discourse became de rigueur.
The opening quotation from Aristotle (above) seems to reflect a much older
rhetorical assumption that political leaders ordinarily needed to dissemble when
they addressed the masses; their peers, of course, would detect this as irony. In
Josephuss day, Plutarch confirms that Roman hegemony had rendered the
obligation to dissemble an even more urgent necessity for public figures. In his
tractate offering advice to the Greek statesman, he describes the need for
duplicity when dealing with the populace, which is always restive and
impetuous, unable to bear any frustration of its aspirations. Plutarch advises the
praising long-dead critics of Nero and Vespasian (Suetonius, Dom. 10.3-4; Tacitus,Agr. 2.1; Pliny,Ep. 7.19.5; Cassius Dio 67.13.2).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
8/72
8
statesman first to listen and learn about his peoples distinctive character, so that
he might accommodate himself to them and win their confidence (Praec. ger. rei
pub. 3.799B-800A). Compare Josephuss first actions in Galilee (V30-61). Further,
the statesman must possess great oratorical skill (Praec. ger. rei pub. 3.799B-800A
5.801a-9.804c) for softening by persuasion and overcoming by charms the fierce
and violent spirit of the people (801e). Given the inevitability that the masses
will dislike political leaders, statesmen must resort to cunning schemes. For
example, they might arrange for a few of their colleagues to pretend to speak
against a measure in the assembly, and then seem to be won over by those
colleagues, in order to bring the audience along with them (16.813a-c, 25.818e-
819b). Plutarch emphasizes that the chief task and test of the statesman under
Roman rule is to maintain the peace, avoid internal conflict ( ), and keep
Roman forces from needing to enter the scene (19.814f-816a). This intersects
perfectly with Josephuss expressed motives and language.
My thesis is that Josephus, who may already have found his entire
situation while defending Galilee against the Romans tragically ironic, in any
event chose for his narrative logic, when he came to write up the story a quarter
of a century later in the Vita, an irony that is often comic. For this he presumably
expected an appreciative audience. Alas we, his scholarly readers, have tended to
assume that his every statement buttresses some ponderous apologetic purpose.
Confident that we can reason out his political and personal motives, we have
sought to circumvent these biases in historical reconstruction. By definition,
however, an ironic mode of representation would interpose a certain distance,
even a playful disposition, between Josephus and any such sincere aims, thereby
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
9/72
9
undercutting our use of his narrative for a historical reconstruction that operates
by excising apologetic bias.
We begin with a survey of the ironic contexts in which Josephus found
himself in late first-century Rome, then examine two kinds of irony in the Vita:
text-dependent and audience-dependent. I deal mainly with the former.
1. Context: Characterizationsnot Definitionsof Irony
Although we should ideally begin with a definition of the critical term,
irony, it appears from specialist analysis that one might as well try to define
religion, poetry, or love.11Dictionaries are not helpful for such a diverse
collection of phenomena, and critics routinely observe that the term has been so
inflatedto encompass everything from mere dissimulation to tragic, modern
romantic, and post-modern existential ironyas to be almost meaningless (Knox
1972; Fowler 2000: 7-9). In place of a definition, this first section of the paper
offers a sketch of ironic qualities and possibilities in other ancient literature and
in Josephus, to establish a context for reading the Vita.
Greek was the quality characteristic of the . We first meet
an in Aristophanes Clouds(Thomson 1926: 3), produced in 423 BCE, but
there is insufficient context there to provide clear guidance about the sense of the
term. In order to escape his mounting debts, Strepsiades is willing to become
even an , one of a long list of undesirable personae, in order to train as a
sophist (so that he can make the worse argument appear the better!), ironically
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
10/72
10
under the tutelage of Socrates (Nub. 449). In two later Aristophanic contexts, the
word group might signify either generic duplicity or more particularly a
duplicitous claim to innocence(Vesp. 174;Aves1211). In subsequent Greek
literature, however, the word group seems often to indicate little more than a
distasteful evasiveness or lack of candour (Demosthenes, Exordium4.3; Phil. 1.7.5,
37.5 [=Orat. 4.7.5, 37.5]; Plutarch, Fabius11.1; Timoloeon15.7;Marius24.4; 43.3;
Lucullus27.4; Pomp. 30.6).
According to Aristotles ethical treatises, however, which discuss the
language of irony systematically for the first time, an is one who
dissembles by understating his knowledge: he says less than he knows, pretends
innocence. We might call this narrower sense of irony disingenuousness. In
these treatises the consistently stands opposite the , the braggart or
empty boaster; is thus the opposite of , and straightforward
truthfulness ( ), the accurate appraisal of ones knowledge, is
the desirable middle way between these two kinds of deceit. I give but one
example:
Now one who is truthful and simple, whom they call straightforward, is
midway between the and the For one who is not actually
ignorant but speaks falsely against himself implying inferiority is an
, whereas the one [who speaks falsely] implying superiority is an
. One who [speaks of] what one actually has is truthful and, after
Homer: sagacious. Overall, then, this kind is a friend of truth, the other
kind a friend of falsehood (
11 One gains a sense of the problem from D. C. Mueckes wry remark (1969: 14): Since, however,
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
11/72
11
; Eth. Eud. 1233b).
Although Aristotle usually implies, as here, that the ironists self-deprecation is
as bad as boastfulness, he sometimes allows that this form of deception is the
more forgivable fault. Insofar as ironists try to avoid ostentation, like Socrates,
they at least reveal a commendable graciousness of character (NE1127b.30-31; cf.
Rhet. 1419b.8).
Indeed, Aristotles ambiguity about as well as his particular take
on its meaning may result from his view that Socrates was the embodiment of
the . That Socrates epitomized irony was a common view throughout
Greco-Roman antiquity. In Platos SymposiumAlcibiades describes the
philosopher as having a contrary inside and outside, like a Silenus doll, which
opens up to reveal inner layers (Sym. 216e):
Again, he [Socrates] is completely ignorant and knows nothing (
)so he affects. Is not this like a Silenus? It
certainly is. This is something he wears on the outside, just like the
sculptured Silenus. But on the inside, were he to be opened up: how full
he is, dear drinking-mates, of prudence (
)! . . . I tell you: he occupies
his whole life being ironic and poking fun at his fellow-men
Erich Heller, in his Ironic German, has already quite adequately not defined irony, there would be
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
12/72
12
(
).
In what already appears to be a send-up of his reputation, the Republic has
Socrates characteristically dismiss any claim to knowledge about justice, to
which Thrasymachus responds with uproarious laughter:
Ye gods, this is it: the typical irony ( ) of Socrates! I myself
predicted these things already to these men, that when you came to reply,
you would decline and rather speak disingenuously ( ) and do
anything rather than answer, if anyone should ask you.
Unfazed by the jab, Socrates continues with equally typical and ironic praise of
his interlocutors wisdom (Resp. 337a; cf.Apol. 37e; Sym. 216e; Gorgias489e).
Socrates reputation for irony persisted through the Latin authors (Cicero, Brut.
292-93; Quintilian, Inst. Or. 9) and well into the period of the Second Sophistic
(Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 612d.12; Lucian, Demonax6.1; Dial. Mort. 7.5.17; Diogenes
Laertius 2.19).
Cicero and Quintilian were the two main (surviving) Latin authors to
discuss irony, and they fully incorporated it into their rhetorical analyses, further
dignifying it in the process. In the Brutus, after Cicero recounts with high praise
the list of eminent Latin orators, his friend Atticus (ironically) attributes this to
irony (Brut. 292):
That irony which they say was found in Socrates (ironiam illam quam in
Socrate dicunt fuisse), and which he uses in the books by Plato, Xenophon,
and Aeschines, I myself consider pleasant and tasteful (facetam et elegantem
[ego] puto). For it is hardly impertinent of a fellow, and even pleasant of
little point in not defining it all over again.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
13/72
13
him (est enim et minime inepti hominis et eiusdem etiam faceti), when
judgements are being made about wisdom (cum de sapientia disceptetur), to
disassociate the thing from himself and to attribute it playfully to those
who arrogate it to themselves (hanc sibi ipsum detrahere, eis tribuere
illudentem, qui eam sibi arrogant). So Socrates in Plato exalts to heaven
Protagoras, Hippias, Prodicus, Gorgias and others with adulation,
whereas he portrays himself as untutored in all matters and uncultivated
(in caelum effert laudibus . . . , se autem omnium rerum inscium fingit et rudem).
This suits him in some strange way, and I cannot agree with Epicurus who
censures it.
In theDe oratore, Cicero speaks in one place of words being inverted
(invertuntur), as when Crassus responded to his legal opponent, a disfigured man
named Lamia: Lets hear the pretty little boy (De orat. 2.262). Whereas we
would call this a nasty form of irony, Cicero equates Greek rather with
Latin dissumulatio. He defines both terms while discussing pleasant (faceta[2.264],
urbana) forms of speech (De orat. 2.269):
Dissimulation also is pleasant (urbana etiam dissimulatio est), when your
words differ from your thoughts, not in the way I spoke of earlierwhen
you say the opposite (cumcontraria dicas), as Crassus did to Lamiabut
when in your whole manner of speaking you are at play seriously (cum
toto genere orationissevere ludas), when you are thinking something other
than what you say (cum aliter sentias ac locquere). . . . Fannius in his
Chronicles records that Africanus (the one named Aemilianus) was
outstanding in this kind of thing, and describes him by the Greek word ,
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
14/72
14
but on the evidence of those who know these subjects better than I do my
opinion is that in this sort of ironyand dissimulation Socrates far surpassed
everyone for wit and refinement (Socratem opinior in hac ironia
dissimulantiaque longe lepore et humanitate omnibus praestitisse).
Elsewhere too Cicero confirms that irony benefits from its connection with
Socrates:
As for Socrates, he used to depreciate himself in discussion and assign
greater weight to those whom he wished to refute; thus, as he said
something other than what he thought, he was fond of regularly
employing the practice of dissembling that the Greeks call ,
which Fannius says was also a feature of Africanus, and one not to be
reckoned a fault in him,for the same thing was to be found in Socrates.
Socrates autem de se ipse detrahens in disputatione plus tribuebat iis quos volebat
refellere; ita cum aliud diceret atque sentiret, libenter uti solitus est ea
dissimulatione quam Graeci vocant; quam ait etiam in Africano fuisse
Fannius, idque propterea vitiosum in illo non putandum quod idem fuerit in
Socrate.
The element of knowing playfulness in Ciceros use of irony reappears in
Quintilian, who includes irony as one form of jest: Is not even the most serious
kind (quae severissime fit) [of irony, ironia] a sort of joke (joci prope genus est?)?
(Inst. Or. 6.3.68). He cites the example of Afer, who responded to a friends
pretended reluctance about accepting a governorship for which he had been
aggressively vying, Well, then, do something for your countrys sake!
Quintilian can equate ironiawith illusio, when a speaker says the opposite of
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
15/72
15
what he means: praising in order to vilify or blaming in order to praise (Inst. Or.
6.6.54-7). Elsewhere, however, he insists on using the Greek because he
does not think, in contrast to Cicero, that it is captured by the Latin dissimulatio
(Inst. Or. 9.2.44-6). He seems to have caught that special sense of expected
detection that is essential to irony but not required of mere dissembling. In the
same passage he makes a distinction between irony as a single turn of phrase
(tropos) and as the stance of an entire text (schema,figura) or even a whole
lifelike Socrates.
This brief survey of irony language in antiquity shows already a variety of
nuances, from mere slipperiness of speech to false modesty, insincere praise or
praise in order to blame, blame in order to praise, and knowingly barbed
humour. Although it began with mostly bad press, this form of speech gained
respectability with Aristotle and especially the Roman orators because of its
connection with Socrates. But we are still left with a somewhat limited semantic
range in relation to the wider phenomenon of irony in ancient literature. Greek
tragic and comic irony, for example, though easily recognizable as such to us, did
not receive the label irony until the nineteenth century (Muecke 1969: 7-9).
Since my pursuit in this paper is not only Josephuss use of words, but his
actual employment of what we call irony, I must offer some criteria also for
detecting this in his writings.
the irony that is not named
While avoiding definitions, in the ironologists manner, D. C. Muecke has
proposed three formal requirements of irony (Muecke 1969: 19-20), which may
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
16/72
16
serve us as a test for its presence in Josephus. It is as efficient to quote as to
summarize his remarks:
In the first place irony is a double-layered or two-storey phenomenon. At
the lower level is the situation either as it appears to the victim of irony
(where there is a victim) or as it is deceptively presented by the ironist
(where there is an ironist). . . . At the upper level is the situation as it
appears to the observer or the ironist. The upper level need not be
presentedby the ironist; it need only be evoked by him or be present in the
mind of the observer. . . .
In the second place there is always some kind of opposition
between the two levels, an opposition that may take the form of
contradiction, incongruity, or incompatibility. What is said may be
contradicted by what is meant . . .; what the victim thinks may be
contradicted by what the observer knows. . . .
In the third place there is in irony an element of innocence; either
a victim is confidently unaware of the very possibility of there being an
upper level or point of view that invalidates his own, or an ironist
pretends not to be aware of it. There is one exception to this; in sarcasm or
in a very overt irony the ironist does not pretend to be unaware of his real
meaning and his victim is immediately aware of it.
To these three conditions A. C. Romano adds a helpful fourth: ironic intention.
Since irony is a deliberate fallacy, it requires reception and acknowledgement
for the circuit to be closed. There is thus no such thing as private irony in
literatureor we could not recognize it (Romano 1979: 23). In brief, then: What
can be said, putting it very simply, is that the art of irony is the art of saying
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
17/72
17
something without really saying it. It is an art that gets its effects from below the
surface (Muecke 1969: 5).
J. A. K. Thomsons classic study of irony in the ancient world (Thomson
1926) identifies many varieties of the phenomenon in Greek authors, without the
language of irony being used. Homers Iliadis ironic because Achilles and the
reader know from the start that he is doomed, even though the story is about his
rage and transformation (Thomson 1926: 96); Herodotuss history, because he
takes so much trouble to explore the customs of a nation everyone knows to have
been vanquished (1926: 116-34); Thucydides, because his rigorous detachment as
an author conceals the personal cost of the events he describes (1926: 139-40).
With respect to Aristophanes Thomson points out that, besides the explicit
interplay between the and the , and also the authors frequent
exploitation of current affairs understood by the audience, which creates irony,
there is an additional irony arising from Aristophanes detachment as author
from the story. One does not sense that any of the characters in his plays
represents Aristophanes himself: to the extent that he manipulates his characters
from a distance, placing himself (and the audience) in the position of knowing
more than all of them, he is being ironic (Thomson 1926: 33).
According to Thomson, Aeschylus and Sophocles both depend heavily
upon the audiences prior knowledge for their irony: the former by holding back
the expected dnouement until the latest possible moment, anticipating it with
teasing lines, the latter by setting the wheels of the familiar plot in motion early,
then building speed consistently until the conclusion approaches with
overwhelming force (Thomson 1926: 69). Euripides, by contrast, is ironic in the
modern sense (1926: 75), for he adopts the vantage-point of the outsider: in
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
18/72
18
TrojanWomenand Ionhe challenges his Athenian peers assumptions against
other nations claims to virtue. Much later, Lucian would prove to be a brilliant
ironist, anticipating Jonathan Swift in the shining defence he provides for a
tyrant (Phalaris2) (1926: 203-5).
Though it was understandable that Thomson should have passed over
New Comedy with little comment, since the plays of Menander were known
only in small fragments when he wrote, it seems unbelievable today that he
should have given short shrift to Roman irony. He proposed that this art was not
native to the Roman mind because it was inimical to the rhetorical concerns that
were so pervasive among Roman authors: rhetoric tries to make things obvious,
thus undercutting irony (Thomson 1926: 216). Whatever the abstract merits of
this position, it collapses when we read the rhetoricians talking about irony as a
figure. And scholarship has since demonstrated the deep ironic veins that run
through Latin literature, from Plautus and Terencenow recognized as
distinctively Roman adapters of their Greek models through bronzeto Tacitus
and Juvenal. As we have seen, Rudich and Bartsch both trace a seismic shift
toward irony to the reign of Nero: Bartsch on the argument that the ironic tactics
of stage actors then became widely adopted by both writers and their audiences
(Bartsch 1994: 1-62); Rudich with attention to the dissident mentality that the
Julio-Claudian autocracy provoked, which reached critical mass under Nero
(Rudich 1993: xix):
This schizophrenic state of affairs led to further complexities. The
primary discrepancy between the de iureand de factoaspects of societal life
meant a variety of gaps between verbaand acta, words and deeds,
manifest in collective as well as individual behavior. It was an uncanny
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
19/72
19
world of illusion and delusion, of ambivalences and ambiguities on all
levels of social interaction.
For example, Tacitus now appears as one of the great ironists of all time (Plass
1988: 15-89; O'Gorman 2000: 3-11); Plinys Panegyric12and some of Juvenal
(Romano 1979; Bartsch 1994: 98-187) have also been fruitfully analyzed from this
perspective.
Thus far, we have observed a broad interest on the part of Greco-Roman
authors in what we would consider ironic discourse. They do not agree about the
terminology: what should be called ironical, whether Greek has exact
parallels in Latin, and whether irony is an acceptable or even praiseworthy art.
Whatever language they might use for it, however, many ancient writers
enriched their compositions at all levels, from the simple trope to deep
structures, with irony. I do not claim that this is a stunning or in any way original
insight, but it seemed important to scout the terrain of ironic possibilities in
Josephuss background before considering his own practice.
irony in Josephus (outside the V ita)
Josephus was well attuned to both the language of irony and the idea of
the thing. He employs words seventeen times in all, once in the Vita
(below), a ratio that makes him a conspicuously heavy user. In every case the
connotations of the word group are negative: they indicate dissimulation,
deception, and derision (BJ1.209, 523; 2.26, 29, 298, 153;AJ15.279, 374), or he
raises the possibility of such behaviour only to deny it. For example, Hyrcanus
12So Pliny to Trajan: You order us to be free, and so we shall be; you order us to bring out whatwe feel into the open, and so we shall bring it forth! (Pan. 66.4; cf. Rudich 1993: xvii-xxxiv).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
20/72
20
IIs advisers claim that the brash young Herod and his family were no longer
speaking of themselves ironically as a mere secretariat under the king (
), but were now openly behaving as
despots (BJ1.209). Herods son Archelaus likewise is accused of irony in using
empty words to present his claim to rule, when his actions indicate his real,
tyrannical intentions (BJ2.26, 29).
About one third of the occurrences of the word group in Josephus are in
the fourth book of the Bellum, where the rebels activities are the subject. First,
when John of Gischala enters the city of Jerusalem, he conceals the fact that he
and others have been driven there by the Roman advance, and emptily boasts
that the Romans will never take Jerusalem: He also spoke ironically about the
ignorance of the inept [Romans], that even if they should take wings, the Romans
would never surmount the wall of Jerusalemthose who already suffered so
terribly throughout the villages of Galilee also breaking their machines against
the walls there! (
; BJ4.127). Here is a double irony. Within the story John attempts
dissimulation with his audience, since he knows better than he speaks. But for
the literary audience the whole effort is ironic because the outcome is well
known to themfrom the prologue as also from recent events: the Romans will
bring wings (cf. the alaeof cavalry) and engines, and they willindeed
surmount and destroy Jerusalems walls. John is thus a pathetic figure, a
misguided hero railing against fate.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
21/72
21
Next, the rebels mixed irony ( ) in with their
terrible behaviour, Josephus says, when they undertook to appoint a new high
priest by lot, behind a screen ( ) of alleged ancient practice (BJ4.151-53).
A little later, the Idumean leader Simon stood outside the walls of Jerusalem and
(ironically) complained about the ironic speech of the former high priest Jesus,
who had refused him entry on what he considered specious grounds (BJ4.279).
Then comes a passage in which -words occur three times in a short
space. The scene itself is ironical. An eminent citizen named Zacharias has
become a target of the Zealots and Idumeans (by now in the city) because of his
wealth and virtue. Rather than killing him outright, however, the rebels cleverly
plan to hold a mock trial, empanelling seventy leading citizens as judges, who
should know what they are expected to conclude in view of the mass slaughter
just concluded (BJ4.326-33). In the event, however, the prosecutors are unable to
offer convincing evidence for their charge that Zacharias has held treasonable
communications with Vespasian, and the accused easily demolishes their
arguments. So, with unimaginable innocence, the panel of judges votes to acquit
him. The result:
A cry went up at this acquittal from the Zealots, and they were all
aggravated at the judges for not perceiving the ironic nature of the
authority they had been given (
; BJ
4.342)
How important it is, when attempting irony, to know your audience! To make
their point, the Zealots move forward and dispatch their intended victim on the
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
22/72
22
spot, punning incessantly and declaring (ironically) that this was theirverdict,
and now the man has received a more perfect acquittal ( i.e., from
life). In addition to the passage quoted, language appears in the
introduction to the story, where Josephus speaks of ironical trials and courts
(4.334), and again in the middle, where the Zealots must restrain themselves
from expressing rage at Zacharias for his defence, to maintain the faade and
ironic nature ( ) of the trial (4.340).
Finally, when Josephus riffs on the meaning of the name Zealot, he
includes the claim that their name suited them only ironically (BJ2.270):
Although they applied the label to themselves by virtue of their zeal for
the good, they were really speaking ironically in view of their injustices,
on account of their animal-like nature, or supposing the greatest evils to
be the greatest goods.
These episodes highlight the fact that, -language aside, theJudean
Waris unavoidably an ironic book. That is because the outcome of the story and
the future of its main protagonists are well known to the literary audience: by the
time they hear the story, the revolt has been quashed and the Judean temple
destroyed; the Roman generals who were leading the campaign have risen to
supreme power on the strength of their victory; the faithful client King Agrippa
has received singular honours, and his sister Berenice fame of a sort, in the
capital city; the notorious rebel leaders (Tacitus,Hist. 5.12) have been duly
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
23/72
23
punished; reprisals have occurred in various places; the air is still charged with
post-war tension; and the enemy general-cum-author Josephus now stands
before them in Rome.
All of this the audience knows in advance, which means that every rebel
ploy, every misguided motive and deceitful speech in Josephuss War,has an
ironic quality. The deliberative speech of Eleazar ben Yair at Masada, reflecting
on the crimes committed by his band and the likely consequences if they
surrender, not to mention his philosophical justification of suicide, in contrast to
Josephuss earlier repudiation of it, fairly drips with irony (BJ7.320-36, 341-88).
Similarly, the speeches of Agrippa and Josephus concerning the terrible cost of
pursuing the revolt and the indomitable fortune of the Romans (BJ2.345-401;
5.362-419), can be read only from the standpoint of the known outcome, which
raises immeasurably the level of pathos. Josephus resorts to pointed irony when
he stands before the walls of Jerusalem and pleads for surrender:
Again you are indignant and scream abuse at me, and indeed I deserve much
worse than this: I, who offer some advice in opposition to fate, and try
forcibly to rescue those whom God has condemned (BJ6.108)
So again, the story summarized above is doubly ironic: whereas the miserable
Zealots could not carry off successful irony even in one case, no matter how
obvious and deliberate they were about it, Josephus employs this art in the most
effective waywithout having to name itto drive home his fundamental
points about the virtue of his priestly colleagues.
A major theme of the Bellum, that of civil war ( ; BJ1.10),
likewise gains its force from the audiences immediate external knowledge of this
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
24/72
24
evil. The much-discussed literary parallels with Thucydides, historian of
many centuries before Josephus (Rajak 1983: 91-4; Feldman 1998: 140-48; Mader
2000: 55-103),13are not to be doubted. But the fact remains that civil war had been
a Leitmotifof Roman history for about two centuries, culminating in the blood-
soaked long year of 69 CE, immediately before the arrival of Josephus and the
Flavian rulers. Civil war (bellum civile) is arguably the most prominent theme in
Roman literature throughout this period: from Cicero and Sallust to Caesar,
Lucan, Tacitus, and Appian.14It is inconceivable that Josephuss Roman audience
would not think of their experience of civil war when they heard about Judea
from him, not least because he often draws explicit connections: in the prologue
(BJ1.4-5, 23-4)with the Romans too, domestic affairs were in disarray (
)and later in more detail (BJ4.486-503). It is
difficult to believe, then, that he did not write the Bellumintending to exploit the
audiences well-tutored revulsion at power-hungry tyrants ( ),
demagogues, and bandits; that this shared semantics of civil war was not his
(ironic) explanatory matrix for the catastrophe in his beloved homeland. In this
sense too, the Bellumbecomes an ironic work, when Josephus evokes his
audiences prior understanding with apparently simple but coded words such as
tyrants and bandits.
TheAntiquitiesis not such an ironical book. Its purposes appear more
earnest: to enlighten foreigners about the Judean constitution. Most of its
characters, unlike those of the War, will have been largely unknown to its first
13 The locus classicusis Thucydides 3.82-4.14 See for example Roller 2001: 17-63.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
25/72
25
audiences, and Josephus typically introduces them on this assumption.
Nevertheless, we still find a number of ironic twists and turns in the narrative.
In particular, in the final quarter of theAntiquitiesJosephus deals at length
with names more familiar to a Roman audience and with well-known
constitutional issues. Whereas in the earlier part of the book he makes direct
claims on behalf of the Judean senatorial aristocracy (AJ4.223; 5.135; 6.36; 11.111),
and repudiates monarchy with equal frankness (AJ6.36; 13.300; 14.41), in the last
five volumes he seems to rely much more upon the audiences extra-textual
knowledge. His charting of Herods inevitable slide from monarch to tyrant (AJ
14.165; 15.354; 16.4; 17.304, 310) would have been understood by them as true to
type (cf. Herodotus 3.80; Plato, Resp. 8.565-69; Aristotle, Pol. 3.5.4 [1279b]; 4.8
[1295a]; Polybius 6.4.8; Dionysius Halicaranassus,Ant. Rom. 7.55.3). For a Roman
audience under Domitian, it becomes ironic, without his having to spell this out,
that Herods terrible succession woes should have been brought for arbitration to
Augustus (AJ17.304-20), whose own problems in finding a successor had become
legendary (Syme 1939: 418-39); ironic that Josephus should highlight the absurd
situation faced by Tiberius (AJ18.205-27), who is alleged to have been Domitians
model (Suetonius, Dom. 20), in naming his own heir; ironic that Tiberius and
Gaius (AJ18.226; 19.2), again following the type, should have behaved so high-
handedly towards the traditional nobility (cf. Domitians practice in Suetonius,
Dom. 12.1-2; Dio 68.1.1-2); ironic and perhaps even risky for the author that the
senator Gaius Sentius Saturninus should be allowed to praise Gaiuss assassins
as worthy of more honour than Brutus and Cassius (AJ19.182-84)the mention
of whose names in the early principate tended to correlate, as we have seen, with
death of the author. It seems that, having made his theoretical case for the Judean
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
26/72
26
constitution directly in the first half of theAntiquities, when he comes to his
critique of the Roman constitution in modern times Josephus relies mainly upon
citing exempla, with the possibility of an uncontrollable subtext, in keeping with
the tenor of the times.
In addition to this larger and portentous ironic tendency, we should not
miss the incidental ironic situations in theAntiquities, some of them taken over
from the War. An easy example is the story of the Essene seer Judas, who once
came to doubt his abilities. Although he had predicted the murder of King
Aristobuluss brother Antigonus on a certain day at Stratos Tower, he
happened to see Antigonus in Jerusalem on the appointed day, too far from the
coastal city of that name to fulfill the prediction. Judass faith was restored,
however, when Antigonus was indeed murdered by the king later in the day, in
an underground passage coincidentally called Stratos Tower (AJ13.311-13; cf. BJ
1.78-80). This doubted-prediction episode recalls Iocastes ironical decision to
swear off prophets after a prediction that her husband would be killed by his son
had proved (seemingly) impossible, given that her son had been exposed as a
newborn and her husband had recently been killed by robbers (Oed. Tyr. 707-22).
To conclude thus far: Josephus reflects the ironic possibilities developed in
literature before his time and the generally duplicitous atmosphere in which
public life and literature were being pursued in late first-century Rome. It is not
clear whether his restriction of -language to distasteful contexts reflects a
view that only unworthies resort to this art, or whether the art is in those cases
contaminated by its practitionersso that it is only the irony that can be named15
(inept, because in the service of vice) that is objectionable. Irrespective of his
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
27/72
27
language, he makes liberal use of irony. We are now almost ready now to
consider the Vita, after attempting a summary classification.
two kinds of irony
It is said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think
that there are two kinds of people and those who do not. Critics like to divide
irony into two kinds, but they do not agree on the basic division. One might
distinguish situational (including cosmic) irony from the verbal and literary
kinds, or irony as an ongoing state from ironic tropes, or the irony of an author
from the irony expressed by a character within the story, or intentional from
unintentional irony (cf. Muecke 1969: 40-63). Though all of these distinctions
have merit, for analyzing the VitaI would posit another classification. Irony
might either be framed within the text, so that all audiences and readers should
detect the better part of it, or it might be mainly tacit, depending upon the extra-
textual knowledge of an envisioned audience.
Textually driven irony was the brief of New Comedy. In distinction from
Old Comedy, which depended for much of its humour on topicality (below),
Menander and his peers wrote plays that were more self-contained, with the
necessary information for the audience embedded in the work itself. That is why
these Greek plays were so portable for adaptation in other contexts, with Plautus
and Terence. Authoritative prologues, often from a divine being, guaranteed the
audiences readiness to follow the plot (Zagagi 1994: 142-43). A crucial function
of the prologue was (Ireland 1995: 19; cf. Balme 2001: xix):
15 With apologies to Lao-tse (Tao te ching1): The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. . . .
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
28/72
28
the revelation to the audience of some important information unknown to
the humans involved in the action, very often the true origin of one of the
characters. Such revelation then allowed the development of New
Comedy's major effect, dramatic irony, when the audience's superior
knowledge enabled it to appreciate the mistaken thought-processes and
resultant embarrassment of the stage-characters.
Even though these plays dealt in standard comedic situations and character
typesthe young man who is in love but broke, requiring the help of a crafty
slave, the old miser, or the boastful soldiereach plot showed surprising twists
and distinctive personalities. To make such turns effective, the audience required
beforehand that authoritative orientation to the scene andpersonae, given by
someone other than a character involved in the process. It is because of this
reliable foreknowledge that the audience of MenandersAspis(97ff.) knows that
Smikrines will be frustrated in his attempt to seize his nieces fortunefor the
heir still lives; knows what the misanthrope and the love-struck young man of
the Dyskolosdo not know about each other; and is immediately ready to find
hilarity, as theMiles Gloriosusbegins, in the alazons confident ignorance of what
is happening next door.16An additional layer of irony was always possible
through the inclusion of topical references that only the first audience would
understand, but that audience knowledge was not crucial because the play took
responsibility for its own ironic framework.
17
16 Significantly, the Greek name for the original of this play was The Alazon.17 A contemporary analogy: in the Black Adder millennial film special (Back and Forth), aStephen Fry character attempts to persuade Elizabeth I of a certain course of action byentertaining her with a brief mime-dance. When she seems resolute in her original decision, andthe Fry character repeatedly objects, she interrupts: Who is the Queen? Now this is ironic (andfunny) on the textually explicit level because of course there is no doubt who the sovereign is:she is seated on her throne, crowned and sceptred. That she should need to ask is contrary to the
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
29/72
29
Comedy was not the only venue for such self-contained textual irony. The
most famous example of the form is perhaps the Gospel of John, which includes
an authoritative divine prologue (John 1.1-18) concerning Jesus heavenly origin,
a point reiterated through speeches at every opportunity (John 3.11-21; 5.19-47;
6.35-58; 8.12-58; 10.1-38). The repeated claims of ignorant characters in the story
to certain knowledgeabout Jesus origins (John 1.45-6; 6.42; 7.41-3) are devastating
because the readerany reader at any timeknows better. Even though the first
audience of John was probably expected also to have extra-textual knowledge of
these matters, this explicit framework ensured the success of the irony for
posterity. Today, television situation comedy works in much the same way,
especially in the many remakes of the Gospel of John, which deal with beings
from other worlds.18
Audience-dependent irony, by contrast, operates without the safety net of
prologues or other such authoritative guides. It can be subtler and more effective,
but it is also riskier. The author must be confident that the audience will know
certain crucial items without being told. This was the way of Old Comedy, which
was filled with topical references to conditions in Athens around the year 420:
many of the main characters are famous figures from the period (Ireland 1995: 1-
2). The modern reader of Aristophanes can only appreciate these references
through diligent background study; one aim of the commentary supplied in
modern editions is to put the reader in the ironic picture.
obvious facts. But a contemporary audience finds another layer of irony in their prior knowledgethat Stephen Fry is a famous gay actor. Given the double meaning of queen in the vernacular,the question Who is the Queen? has a particular irony for this audience only. It seems likelythat we miss many such allusions, which would provide another layer of irony, in New Comedy.18Thus each episode of Third Rock from the Sunbegins with a visual reminder of the protagonistssituation, an authoritative prologue, which guarantees that the audience will see the ironicmisunderstanding of some character who innocently asks: Where are you folks from?
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
30/72
30
Topical references were not, again, the only means of tapping an
audiences extra-textual resources for ironic purposes: Greek tragedy and later
pantomime depended upon an existing familiarity with the traditional story
lines, which would be presented again in new forms. It was prior audience
knowledge of the plot that gave poignancy to Oedipuss vow to find and punish
the one who was polluting Thebes (Oed. Tyr.135-45). For the case of Rome,
Bartsch traces the development of staged irony (not her words) from the late
republic, when it was largely determined by authors and actors through their
deliberate emphasis and gesture, to the early principate, when the initiators
backed away out of caution, and audience detection became the more important
component of the ironic circuit (Bartsch 1994: 71-82).
Much of this audience-dependent irony had comical overtones. Today, in
a distant parallel, stand-up (as distinct from situational) comedy typically
depends upon an irony that comes from the specific audiences knowledge of
current affairs. The comedians one-liners lose all their effect if an explanation of
the back-story is required.19The speakers challenge is to find ironic statements
appropriate both to the audiences knowledge and to their taste, for an audience
who fully understand the allusion may still find unwelcome the speakers
attitude toward this unspoken, shared knowledge.20In the case of Josephus, too,
we need to reflect on both what his audience knew and how they felt about his
presentation.
19It is enough for a comedian to mention former U.S. President Clinton in conjunction withinterns, or cigars, and an American audience will immediately supply the back story.20Witness U.S. President Bushs ironic quip at Yale Commencement, 2001, to the effect that youcan go a long way with a C average. This audience evidently understood the reference to thePresidents poor record at Yale, and (we are told) kept a stony silence.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
31/72
31
We turn, then, to irony in Josephuss Vita. Somewhat surprisingly, to
generations of sincere scholars, Josephus illustrates his sterling character as
Galilean commander through the use of irony as his principal administrative
tactic. According to his account, he was not the only one to attempt irony in
Galilee on the eve of the war; but he happily reports that he was the only one to
use it successfully.
2. Text-Dependent Irony in the V itathe ironic framework
The transition to Josephuss public life ( ) follows the opening
survey of his ancestry and education (V1-11) in V12. After a brief embassy to
Neros Rome (further below), which appears to serve as the proving ground for
the young aristocrats abilities (V13-16; cf. Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. 10.804D-
12.806F), we find him back in Jerusalem assuming a position of leadership and
facing popular demand for secession from Rome (V17). Here he begins
immediately to establish the ironic context for the work.
He makes a first, dutiful attempt at the recommended by
Aristotle:
17Now I was surprised already to find the beginnings of revolutions,
with many [people] grandly contemplating defection from the Romans. So
I tried to restrain the insurgents and charged them to think again. They
should first place before their eyes those against whom they would make
warfor not only with respect to war-related expertise but also with
respect to good fortune were they disadvantaged in relation to the
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
32/72
32
Romans18and they should not, rashly and quite foolishly, bring upon
their native places, their families, and indeed themselves the risk of
ultimate ruin. 19I said these things and was persistently engaged in
dissuasive pleading, predicting that the outcome of the war would be
utterly disastrous for us. I was not convincing, to be sure, because the
frenzy of the desperadoes prevailed.
Even this description of Josephuss earnest efforts, especially V18-19, includes
irony, given the audiences knowledge that the foresight he articulates here has
turned out to be precisely accurate. Yet this first effort is presented as a sincere
one. When he fails with frankness, however, he resorts without hesitation to the
doublespeak that Aristotle identifies as appropriate in dealing with the mob (V
20-23).
20I became anxious now that by saying these things constantly I might
incur hatred and suspicion, as though conspiring with the enemy, and I
would risk being taken and done away with by them. . . . . 21After the
removal of Manaem and the principal men of the bandit brigade, I came
back out of the temple and held discussions with the chief priests and
principal men of the Pharisees. 22Extreme fear took hold of us as we saw
the populace with weapons: we were unsure what we should do
ourselves and were unable to halt the revolutionaries. Given the clear and
present danger to ourselves, we began saying ( ) that we
concurred with their opinions. But we counseled them to stand fast, even
if the enemy soldiers had advanced, so that they should be given credit for
justly taking up weapons in defense. 23We did these things hoping that
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
33/72
33
before long Cestius would come up with a large force and halt the
revolution.
Here Josephus parades before the literary audience his calculated effort to
deceive the common folk, confiding now his hope that legions from Antioch
would solve his problem. The double game has begun. Notice incidentally that
the Vitawill disproportionately use the language of deception: 5 of 13
occurrences of (fabricate); 2 of 6 occurrences of (clever
trick); and 5 of 20 occurrences of (generals trick) are in this little
book. Josephus will become an expert deceiver.
But the game has only just begun. The interpreters problem is to know
how far it goes. For example, a few sentences later Josephus reports the decision
of the Jerusalem leaders to send him and two others to Galilee (V29):
to persuade the wretches to put down their weapons and to instruct them
that it was preferable to reserve these for the nations lite. It was agreed
that these latter would hold the weapons constantly ready for the future,
but would wait patiently to learn what the Romans would do.
.
Does Josephus mean that the leaders really wereintending to establish a select
army for the coming conflict? Or does he mean that he and his colleagues were
instructed to refer to such an army as apretextfor persuading the rebels to lay
down their weapons? We cannot be sure, I think. But in support of the latter
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
34/72
34
reading: nothing in the narrative thus far has prepared the audience for the
notion that the Jerusalem leaders wished to create any sort of rebel force, and we
have already seen them appeal for a strictly defensive posture as a deliberate
pretextfor stalling until Cestiuss arrival (V22-23). It seems plausible, then, that
here too, after Cestiuss intervention has failed, Josephus is simply providing
further examples of the doublespeak that he and his colleagues were forced to
use with the masses in order to buy time.
With the lengthy digression on Philip son of Iacimus, in connection with
his initial description of Gamala (V48-61), Josephus introduces many of the
ironical tactics that will reappear in the later narrative. Varus, the power-hungry
deputy of Agrippa II, is a past master of what many Greek writers called
simple dissimulation. His clever modus operandiwas first to fabricate a
scandalous accusation against the king, thus to put it in circulation, and then to
deny it indignantly so that he could execute its alleged perpetrator(s). Varus sets
the tone for the deceptions that will follow from Josephuss opponents.
Josephus himself is by now deeply involved in the deception game, and
we see this as he plans his Galilean strategy in consultation with the Jerusalem
leaders (V62-3). After assessing the situation, his first action in Galilee is to
summon the council of Tiberias (V64), before whom he claims( ) that the
Jerusalem council has instructed him to demolish the house of Herod the tetrarch
on the ground that it contains animal images (V65). Some of the councilors, led
by Capella, strongly disagree with the plan but eventually are persuaded by
Josephus (V66).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
35/72
35
If this story is taken straightforwardly, as scholars usually do take it, it
creates a number of problems. First, even though he has just described his most
recent instructions from Jerusalem (V62-3), he has mentioned nothing at all
about such attacks on royal property, and they appear quite out of character with
the leaders reported sentiments. Second, he uses the same ironic code as in the
programmatic V22 ( ), which should give us pause: he saidthat the
Jerusalem leaders had sent him to demolish the house. Third, in spite of his
declaration and the alleged urgency of the matter (V65: ), Josephus does
not actually begin action against the Herodian residence, but rather leaves town
for Upper Galilee (V67). Fourth, when a Tiberian faction led by Jesus goes ahead
and attacks the palace, Josephus becomes furious becausethey have acted
contrary to his intention (V68). Finally, he responds to their raid by quickly
recovering as much as possible of the pilfered furnishings and handing them
over for safe keeping to none other than Capellas groupthe very men who had
objected to the operation in the first place. Josephus plainly tells the literary
audience that he wanted to return the goods to King Agrippa (V68). It seems to
me that this account makes sense only if it is read ironically: Josephus is relating
that he had no intention of actually raiding royal property, but boldly declared
his intention to do so in order to consolidate his support base among the militant
Galilean populace, in keeping with the policy initiated at V22. On this reading,
the passage provides no support for the historical argument that the Jerusalem
council was aggressively prosecuting the revolt at this time (contraLuther 1910:
17-8; Drexler 1925: 297-98; Goodman 1987: 218; Price 1992: 32).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
36/72
36
The Josephus character in the Vitais not the only one playing a double
game. According to Josephus as author, one of the three factional leaders in
Tiberias, Justus, was playing a game that was the inverse of his own. Whereas
Josephus really wanted to peace but had to pretend that he was planning for
war:
36Iustus son of Pistus, the principal man of the third bloc, although he
kept pretending to be in doubt about the war, was actually longing for
revolutionary activities, intending to manufacture power for himself out
of the upheaval (
). 37So he came along into the [city] center and tried to teach
the mob that the city had always been the capital of Galilee since the times
of Herod the Tetrarch, who was its builder, and who had wanted the city
of the Sepphorites to submit to that of the Tiberians. They had not
relinquished this primacy under King Agrippa the father, but it remained
until Felix was put in charge of Judea.38Now, he was saying:
You yourselves just happen to have been given to the younger
Agrippa as a gift from Nero! And because it submitted to Rome,
Sepphoris immediately became the capital of Galilee, and both the
royal bank and the archives, having been dismantled, are with
them.
39 These and many other things against King Agrippa he said to them, for
the sake of provoking the populace to defection. . . .
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
37/72
37
Here Josephus emphasizes, by the way he frames it, that Justuss argument,
which he tries out on the mob ( ), is utterly
specious. Further, his literary audience mighthave noted these obvious
weaknesses: that Josephus has already said that Sepphoris had by far the more
ancient claim to supremacy in Galilee (BJ1.170; 2.56); that if Tiberias had not
been ceded to Agrippa II, it would nothave been a free city but would have
remained under the Roman governor Felixs direct control (BJ2.253); and so its
transition to the client kings hands had quite likely been a benefit for both king
and residents. From what follows it is plain that Justuss position is crafted for
one purpose only (so Josephus): to assemble a following that will help him to
fulfill his ambition.
Josephus continues, with his usual resignation about mob fickleness (cf.AJ
3.24-7, 68-9, 295-315; V77, 103, 113, 140, 149, 271, 315, 388):
40By saying these things, he won over the mob. For he was rather good at
manipulating the populace and at overcoming the better arguments of
disputants by craftiness and a kind of guile through words. In fact, he was
well trained in the Greek sort of education, on the basis of which he
audaciously took it upon himself to record also the history of these
eventsas if he could overcome the truth itself by means of this speech-
craft.
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
38/72
38
Here Josephus balances Justuss intended dissimulation with his own irony by
evoking his audiences prior knowledge of the old charge against the sophists:
that they make the worse argument appear the better one (Aristophanes, Nub.
94-8, 112-18; Isocrates,Antid. 15; Plato,Apol. 19b; Aristotle, Rhet. 2.24.11.1402a).
More significantly, he characterizes the art that teaches rhetorical versatility at
the expense of truth, though this had been thoroughly domesticated in Rome (cf.
Cicero, Brut. 322), as the Greeksort of education. This approach seems to
presuppose a Roman audience, for Roman authors had a long (rhetorical)
tradition of expressing such contempt for deceptive Greek ways, over against
their own simplicity and faithfulness (Polybius 6.56; 31.25.4; Cicero, Brut. 247;
Flac. 9, 24, 31, 57;Tusc. 4.33.70; 5.20.58; Sallust, Bell. Jug. 85.32-3; Lucan 3.302;
Tacitus,Ann. 14.20; Dial. 28.4-29.2; cf. Balsdon 1979: 30-54; Gruen 1992: 52-83,
223-71). In the works of Plautus, Erich Segal counts more than seventy-five
different expressions to denote Greek perfidy, the most famous of which is the
ironic Graeca fidesofAsinaria199 (Segal 1987: 37-8). So whereas Justus attempts
real dissimulation as a character within the story, the author Josephus neutralizes
it, in retrospect, with an ironic disparagement that he expects his audience to
share.
We next meet John of Gischala, who claims( ) that he wants to raid
some imperial grain storehouses in order to rebuild the walls of his native town
from the proceeds (V71). Although Josephus does not tell us here what he
understood Johns real intentions to be, he allows that it was because he
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
39/72
39
understood these that he wanted to withhold his authorization. Possibly, since he
knew (as his audience knows) that John had already fortified Gischalas walls (V
45)though John perhaps did not know that he knew, he realized that Johns
worthy-sounding goal must have been a pretext for a fundraising effort that was
really designed to make himself general (V70). John later becomes a determined
ironist, however: he will request permission to take physical therapy at the baths
near Tiberias, though his real goal is to inspire defection from Josephus there (V
85-7). And after another failed attempt at revolt he will write to Josephus with
oaths and awesome vows, assuring him that he has played no role in these
unfortunate events (V101).
Josephus, for his part, continues undaunted in his own ironic campaign.
Only because he wants to keep an eye on the Galilean leadership, on a pretext
of friendship ( ) as he says, he designates seventy of them his
friends ( ) and travel companions; he will take them around with him,
trying casesall in order to secure the loyalty of the people. He is disarmingly
open about this pretence (V79). He maintains his deceitfulness in Sepphoris,
where he affects ( ) to be unaware of the townspeoples plot against
him (through the agency of Jesus), until just the right moment (V107, 109).
Josephuss cheerful willingness to deceive the populace is displayed
before his literary audience following the incident with the Dabarittan young
men: they rob the wife of the kings administrator, Ptolemy, and bring the
plunder to their leader Josephus. With the literary audience he is perfectly
candid about his intention (thirty years earlier) to return the goods to their
rightful owner. Notice his ironic logic (V128):
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
40/72
40
Wanting to preserve these things for Ptolemy, since he was a
compatriotand even robbing adversaries is proscribed by our laws, I
asserted ( ) to those who had brought them that it was necessary to
keep them so that the walls of Jerusalem might be repairedfrom their sale.
Because he wanted to return the goods to Ptolemy, he saidthat he would use them
for repairing Jerusalems walls, something he hoped would satisfy the mob.
Josephus appears to assume throughout the audiences understanding that one
simply does not declare ones true intentions before a mob, especially in times of
unrest. Thus, while assuring the masses in this way, he secretly hands the gear
over to friends of the king for safe conduct back (V131).
When this secret action is suspected, the mob is whipped up to a frenzy
and makes a charge on Josephuss residence. Now we see possibly a different
sort of ironyintertextualcoming into play. Josephuss lone attendant urges
him to die nobly by my own hand, as a general, before my adversaries came to
compel me or to kill me [themselves]. Although he was saying these things, I,
having entrusted my affairs to God, set out to meet the mob in advance (
[138]
; V137-38). Especially since
Josephus has dramatically altered the story against its parallel in the Bellum(BJ
2.601), which instead has four colleagues urging him toflee, showing deliberation
in shaping the story, we seem justified in finding here an evocation of a more
important story in the Bellum. At the siege of Iotapata, namely, Josephus had also
been pressed to die willingly, as a general of the Judeans (
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
41/72
41
), and he even
refers to a that generals ought to die by their own hands (BJ3.400). But
there, as here, he chose instead to trust his safety to God the protector (
). Outside the walls of Jerusalem, later
in the conflict, he repeatedly implored the citizens likewise to entrust themselves
to God ( ; BJ5.382, 390, 400). It is admittedly unclear whether
the audience could have been expected to make this connection with the central
story of the Bellum, but the parallel seems undeniable.
When he encounters the advancing Tarichean mob, Josephus further
deepens his pretence, winking ironically at his literary audience as he narrates.
First, he falls down and begs for mercy, conceding that he may indeed have
seemed to commit an injustice (V139). Observing that this incipient contrition
favourably affects the mob, on the spot he fabricates the entirely new proposition
that he had wanted to keep the captured goods as a surprisefor rebuilding the
walls of noble Tarichea(V142)! On a roll now, our reporter decides to gild the lily,
with what must have seemed to him and his literary audience biting sarcasm:
For because I understood well that this city, so hospitable toward
foreigners ( ),
was eagerly accommodating such men as these, who have left behind
their native places and made common cause with our fortune (
), I wanted to construct walls. . . .
Although in V143 and 162 Josephus will indeed refer to resident aliens in
Tarichea, which gives his bid a certain plausibility, he makes a much larger issue
of the Taricheans extreme lack of hospitality towards the dignitaries who had
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
42/72
42
fled from Agrippas territory (V149-54; cf. 112-13). It is also ironic that he should
refer to our fortune, since he has consistently placed fortune ( ) entirely on
the side of the Romans (BJ2. 360, 373, 387, 390; 3.368; 5.367; 6.409-13), as also in
the Vita(17).
Yet further, when the Taricheans predictably respond to the building
proposal with huzzahs, but the Tiberians and other visitors become envious, he
spontaneously adds that of course he planned to fortify the other locations as
well (V144). Josephus leaves little room for doubt that now, as author, he is
positively reveling in his rhetorical exploits of a generation ago, when he could
have any crowd he wanted eating from his hands. In the service of his ultimate
virtue and genuine concern for the welfare of the state, he can do exactly what
Cicero required of oratory: to direct the audience wherever he wishes, to make
whatever persuasive case the situation demands (cf. Brut. 322; De orat. 1.30). Such
a narrative, it seems, requires a well-disposed audience.
Josephuss deceptions continue unabated, and he gives every indication
that he enjoys relating them: his intimidation of a raging mob at Tarichea by
isolating and maiming their toughest man (V145-48); his great energy in
spiriting away the refugee dignitaries from Agrippas kingdom (V151-54); his
famous boat trick on the Kinneret, which allowed him to take captive more than
a thousand Tiberians with only sevenhe gleefully emphasizes (V161,
164)seven of his own men (V161-69). With the unfortunate Mr. Famous
( ), identified by the fickle and cowardly mob of Tiberias as the instigator
of their sedition, Josephus resorts to the age-old salesmans ploy of artificially
raising the price in order to offer the appearance of a discount. Not wishing to
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
43/72
43
harm him beyond usefulnessquite possibly because he is not persuaded by the
mobs eagerness to blame this young man21but still requiring the appearance of
sternness, he first tells him to cut off both his hands, then relents to leave him
one. The absurdity of the initial order only highlights, it seems to me, the ironical
nature of the whole episode.
The decisive incident for establishing Josephuss ironical posture in the
first third of the Vitanarrative comes in the next episode, when he interviews the
Tiberian leaders Justus and his father Pistus after a generous dinner. Hear his
own description (V175-78):
After the banquet I said: I myself know very well that the power of the
Romans is utterly overwhelming; but Ihave kept quiet about it because of
the bandits. 176I counseled them to do the same, to wait patiently for the
necessary amount of time and not become upset with me as general, for
they would not easily have the chance to encounter someone else who
was similarly mild. 177I also reminded Justus that before I came along
from Jerusalem, the Galileans had cut off his brothers hands, adducing
wrongdoing prior to the war in the form of forged letters by him, and that
after Philips withdrawal the Gamalites had risen against the Babylonians
and disposed of Chareshe was Philips relative178and how they had
with no greater consideration disciplined Jesus, that mans brother and the
21 Consider: (a) Josephus has already removed under guard many hundreds of leading Tiberiansas punishment for the attempted sedition, indicating that he holds them at least formallyresponsible; (b) Kleitoss name has not come up before the mob identifies him; (c) Josephusalways considers the mob fickle and impetuous (e.g.,AJ3.24-7, 68-9, 295-315), and Josephusimplies that the mob singles him out and demands punishment in order to deflect criticism fromthemselves (V170); (d) his name, as well as Josephuss comments about his youth and volatiletemperament may be given to explain why the mob would single him out as a plausible suspect;(e) Josephus himself does not indicate that he was persuaded this assignment of blame. He must
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
44/72
44
husband of Justuss sister. These were the things I discussed with Justuss
group after the banquet. Early the next day I gave orders for everyone
under guard to be released.
This encounter recalls quite plainly the opening scenes of the revolt in V17-22:
the wiser leaders decide upon a policy of irony because they realize that
straightforward opposition to the sentiments of the masses is pointless and
perilous. Though remarkable for its frankness, from the perspective of the Vitas
audience this exchange must seem fully in accord with Josephuss self-
presentation thus far. The audience can feel only contempt for such parochial
nafs as Justus and Pistus, who cause problems because they lack the requisite
political savvy.
dueling ironies: Josephus and the delegation
We have begun to see how Josephus contrasts his brilliantly successful
irony with the pathetic efforts at dissimulation of his opponents, notably Justus
and John. The Tiberian leaders, too, have tried their hand at duplicity, pressuring
Josephus to finish reinforcing their walls while also appealing to King Agrippa
for his support. Josephus, however, saw right through this and punished them.
Now, with the arrival of the delegation from Jerusalem, the story moves into a
phase of ironic dueling, from which only one party can emerge successful.
Jonathan and his three companions, who have been selected in the hope
that the four of them collectively might convince the Galilean populace that they
match Josephuss claims to eminence (V198), are allowed the first shot in this
discipline the man in some way because he always finds a way to accommodate the wishes of themob (V170-71).
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
45/72
45
duel. Once again, Josephus makes explicit the ironic framework: he offers an
ostensibly trustworthy narration of the delegations mandate to bring him back
dead or alive (V202). It is not only the literary audience of the Vitawho is in on
the secret, however, for Josephus explains that his character Josephus also
received this crucial intelligence through a friendly informer, via a letter from his
father (V204). When the audience shares knowledge with the character Josephus,
of which the delegation members are confidently unaware, we see the creation of
an impressive ironic situation, akin to that of New Comedy. This is the
background against which all of the delegations subsequent posturing and
dissembling must be read.
Anticipating the delegations arrival, Josephus hastily assembles an army
of about 8,000 men and heads to the western extremityas he explainsof
Galilee. He hurries there, he says, so that he can pretend ( ) to be
preparing for battle with the Roman (tribune) Placidus. But why does he head so
quickly for the western extremity of his region, only to make believe that he is
preparing for battle? The reason emerges from the following sentences. As soon
has he has set up camp there, Jonathans delegation from Jerusalem arrives at the
southern tip of Galilee, and writes requesting an interview. Observe the ironic
nature of their letter:
Jonathan and those with him,
who have been sent by the Jerusalemites,
To Josephus
Greetings!
We were sent by the principal men in Jerusalem, when they heard that
John of Gischala had often plotted against you, to reprimand him and to
8/14/2019 At Play Seriously Irony and Ironic Humor in the VITA of Josephus.pdf
46/72
46
exhort him to submi