Josephus
ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΙΘ
(i. 1) Γάιος δὲ οὐκ εἰς μόνους Ἰουδαίους τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ τοὺς ὁπόσοι τῇδε οἰκοῦσιν ἐπεδείκνυτο τῆς ὕβρεως τὴν μανίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ πάσης
Jewish Antiquities XIX
Book XIX
(i. 1)a Gaius not only exhibited the madnessbof Insolence and madness of Gaius Caligula. his insolence in relation to the Jews who dwelt in Jerusalem and throughout Judaea, but he also sent
- aT. Mommsen’s theory (“Cornelius Tacitus und Clunius Rufus,” Hermes iv, 1870, p. 322) that Josephus’ source for the long account of the conspiracy against Gaius and the accession of Claudius is the historian Cluvius Rufus has won rather general acceptance (cf., e.g., Groag, in Pauly-Wissowa, iv, 1901, pp. 123–125). The chief support for this theory is the conversation recorded between Cluvius and a senator named Bathybius in which Cluvius gives an apt quotation from Homer urging Bathybius to be silent (§§ 91–92). Such an anecdote, it has been said (see Mommsen, p. 320; accepted by R. Syme, Tacitus, i, 1958, p. 287), can derive only from Cluvius Rufus himself, and not verbally, but precisely from his writings. Moreover, M. P. Charlesworth, “The Tradition about Caligula,” Camb. Hist. Jour. iv, 1933, p. 116, cites a number of examples from this section of Book XIX in which Josephus’ style is more metaphorical and more highly coloured than is usual for him; and he suggests that Josephus had before him a Latin original written in a highly rhetorical and metaphorical style, namely Cluvius Rufus. It has even been argued by A. Momigliano, “Osservazioni sulle fonti per la storia di Caligola, Claudio, Nerone,” Rend. d. Accad. d. Lincei viii, 1932, p. 305, that Cluvius was the main source not only of Josephus but also of the two other chief extant writers on the subject of Gaius’ assassination, Suetonius and Dio Cassius. But Mommsen’s theory seems to rest on rather flimsy evidence. In the first place, there is no indication that Cluvius Rufus’ history covered the period of Gaius and Claudius, since the references to it in Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 20 and xiv, 2, and in Pliny, Epist. ix. 19. 5, deal with the period of Nero alone. The anecdote in §§ 91–92 might well have been recorded by another writer, perhaps Servilius Nonianus or Aufidius Bassus (see Syme, i, pp. 287–288) or, because it was so striking, might well have been transmitted orally. There is no indication that Josephus’ style in Book XIX is more metaphorical than it is in large parts of the rest of the work; and even if it is, there is no evidence that these metaphors were borrowed from Cluvius, about whose style we know almost nothing firsthand, inasmuch as his works are lost except for very slight fragments (H. Peter, Hist. Rom. Relliq. ii, 1906, p. 114). The rhetorical style was widely cultivated among the Romans, and Josephus might have borrowed these metaphors from another writer who worked within the same rhetorical tradition. Several reasons have been advanced for the length of this digression on Gaius’ murder and Claudius’ accession. But Josephus’ own moralistic reasons (§ 16), coupled with his desire to glorify the Jewish king Agrippa, who played a key rôle in Claudius’ accession (§§ 236 ff.), seem sufficient.
- bCf. Suetonius, who divides his biography of Gaius Caligula into two parts, Caligula the emperor and Caligula the monster (Calig. 22). Gaius’ madness is also referred to by Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 34, Dio Cass. lix. 29. 1, Tac. Ann. xi. 3, and Sen. De Const. Sap. 18. 1 (cited by J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula), 1934, p. 212).
DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.josephus-jewish_antiquities.1930