Reflections on Titus and Josephus Yavetz, Zvi Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1975; 16, 4; ProQuest pg. 411

FOR SIR RONALD SYME 

Reflections on Titus and Josephus 
Zvi Yavetz 

IN a well-known passage in the Babylonian Talmud1 (Sabbath 33b) 
Rabbi Judah is quoted as having praised the deeds of the Romans 
in Judaea. He spoke with appreciation of the marketplaces built 

by the Romans, of their bridges and their bath installations. A mod­
ern study on Roman provincial administration, intending to empha­
size the benefits of Roman rule, could easily use a quotation of this 
kind in order to prove that the story of fostering peace and progress in 
backward provinces is not based only on Roman propaganda. Provin­
cials themselves appreciated the benefits of the pax romana. 

Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, however, grossly contradicted the opin­
ion expressed by Rabbi Judah (ibid.):2 HAll they have instituted, they 
(the Romans) have instituted only for their own needs. They have 
instituted marketplaces to place harlots in them, baths for their own 
pleasure, bridges to collect toll." Modern historians who criticize the 
writings of Asian and African history from a European or American 
point of view and who deplore the failure of the ancient Gauls, 
Illyrians or Cappadocians to write their own history could make use 
of this passage to prove the <geistigen Widerstand' of the provincials 
to the Roman order. They would no doubt admit that a speech put by 
Tacitus in the mouth of Calgacus or of a Civilis cannot replace authen­
tic, vernacular documents (the historical accuracy of the acts of the 
pagan martyrs cannot be considered as above suspicion), but the say­
ing of Rabbi Simeon appears genuine. 

I dare say that had many local histories written by educated pro­
vincials been at our disposal, the general picture of the relation 
between Rome and conquered countries would hardly have been 
changed. Many valuable details could be added to our knowledge: 
how poor and unintelligible would Jewish history be had Book V of 
Tacitus' Histories been our only source for the period from the exodus 
from Egypt to the destruction of the Second Temple? But the basic 

1 The story does not appear in the Jerusalem Talmud. 

411 

2 Cf Tac. Agr. 21. 



412 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

and obvious fact will remain unchallenged, that all over the provin­
ces Rome had her supporters as well as her opponents.3 

Rome's image in the Talmud and the Midrashim is a fascinating topic. 
Kraus4 has conveniently collected the relevant passages from the 
paradigmatic literature concerning the atmosphere towards Rome 
prevailing in Judaea in the third and fourth centuries. The general 
picture is not surprising. Basically Rome is considered a wicked em­
pire. HAs this pit is unfathomable, so is the wickedness of this kingdom 
unfathomable" (Bereshit Rabba 2.4, p.17 Theodor). Rome is compared 
with a pig, the Roman emperor is usually depicted as a dogs-not 
congenial animals in Jewish tradition. Rome's wealth is proverbial 
(Avot de Rabbi Nathan 28.43 Theodor), but so is her avarice. Jews 
would have subscribed without hesitation to Tacitus' remark (Agr. 
12), ego facilius crediderim naturam margaritis deesse quam nobis avari­
tiam. As a matter of fact Rome owes her wealth to robbery. Her 
cruelty in extorting taxes and customs of all sorts is often severely 
condemned (Agr. 31). But at one and the same time a certain respect 
towards Rome's power and dignity by which she governs the world 
is also discernible (Shmot Rabba 20.11). Rome is praised by Rabbi 
Shimeon Ben Lakish for maintaining law, order and public security 
(Beres hit Rabba 9.3 and Avoda Zam 2.2). The passage in Pirkei Avot 
3.2, "Pray for the peace of the ruling power, since but for fear of it, 
men would have swallowed up each other alive," is of special signifi­
cance. Its historical origin has still to be clarified, but it seems that it 
dates after the destruction of the Second Temple.s 

3 For expression of hatred against Roman rule (iustum odium imperii nostri) see e.g. Cic. 
Prov.Cons. 6; De Imp.Cn.Pomp. 65, quanto in odio simus apud exteras nationes; Luc. Phars. 7.284, 
Remanos odere omnes dominosque gravantur; Just. Epit. 28.2, 29.2, 38 (6-7); Vell.Pat. 2.27.2, 
raptores Italicae libertatis lupos; Liv. 3.66.4; Sall.Jug. 81,lubidinem imperitandi, . •. quisque opu­
lentissimus videatur, ita Romanis hostem fore; Caes. Gall. 7.38.8, 77.15; Tac. Agr. 30. On the other 
hand, see Polyb. 21.23.1-10 for a Rome fighting for the liberty of Greece or for a magnificent 
accretion of strength to her friends. Rome reverencing holy places, Joseph. BJ 5.363 and 
esp. Agrippa's famous speeches at BJ 2.345ff. For an analysis of these passages see H. Fuchs, 
Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antikelt Welt (Berlin 1938). 

's. Kraus, Persia and Rome in the Talmud and in the Midrashim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem 1948). 
lowe the references to him. 

5 ibid. pp. 68 and 104. 
6 This passage is not analysed in B. Dinur, ''The Historical Significance of Pirkei Avot" 

[Hebrew), Zion 35 (1970) 1; for further remarks about the passage see G. Alon, Studies in 
Jewish History [Hebrew] I (Tel Aviv 1967) 44, nn.73 and 74. One is reminded of Jeremiah 29.7, 
.. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, 
and pray unto the Lord for it. For in the place thereof shall ye have peace." 



ZVI YAVETZ 413 

The Talmud and the Midrashim can be relied upon as sound histori­
cal sources for the first century only after a detailed and minutiose 
scrutiny. Such a method has led some scholars to extremely interest­
ing results, especially by comparing the Jerusalem and Babylonian 
Talmud.? 

The history of Judaean-Roman relations based on such a critical 
method, however, still remains to be written. Be the result as it may, 
the fact cannot be ignored that even the Talmud and the Midrashim 
contain hints about positive aspects of Roman government for some 
parts of the population. But as far as Titus is concerned, the verdict is 
unanimously negative. The emperor who destroyed the Temple of 
Jerusalem is hardly ever mentioned in Jewish sources without the 
epithet 'Harasha' (the villain).8 Surprisingly little, however, is to be 
found about him in the Talmud and the Midrashim, and some passages 
may be quoted for illustration (Gittin 56b):9 

"Titus ... said, Where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted? 
This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. 
What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy 
of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. 
He then took a sword and slashed the curtain. Miraculously blood 
spurted out, and he thought that he had slain himself ... Abba 
J:Ianan said: ... Titus further took the curtain and shaped it like a 
basket and brought all the vessels of the Sanctuary and put them in 
it, and then put them on board a ship to go in triumph with them in 
his city ... A gale sprang up at sea which threatened to wreck him. 
He said: Apparently the power of the God of these people is only over 
water ... If he is really mighty, let him come up on the dry land and 
fight with me. A voice went forth from heaven saying: Sinner, son of 
sinner, ... I have a tiny creature in my world called a gnat ... Go up 
on the dry land and make war with it. When he landed the gnat came 
and entered his nose, and it knocked against his brain for seven years. 
One day as he was passing a blacksmith's it heard the noise of the 

7 E.g. Alon, loe.cit.; Y. Efron, Shimon ben Shattah and King Yanaeus: In memorium G. Alon 
[Hebrew] (Tel Aviv 1970) 69 n.6 for further bibliography, and lately the magisterial article 
by Y. Baer, «Jerusalem in the Days of the Great Rebellion" [Hebrew], Zion 37 (1972) 127-90, 
though a different approach to the sources is suggested here. 

S D. Spiegel, Die Kaiser Titus und Hadrian im Talmud und Midrasch (Wien 1906), is a worth­
less compilation. For the original version of the stories in earlier Palestinian sources, see 
the important remarks of Efron, op.cit. (supra n.7) 69ff. 

9 From the English transI. of The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim IV, ed. 1. Epstein, trans!' 
M. Simon (London 1936) 259-60. 



414 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

hammer and stopped. He said: I see there is a remedy. 50 every day they 
brought a blacksmith who hammered before him. If he was a non­
Jew, they gave him four zuZ, if he was a Jew they said, It is enough 
that you see the suffering of your enemy. This went on for thirty days, 
but then the creature got used to it ... When [Titus] died he said: 
Burn me and scatter my ashes over the seven seas so that the God 
of the Jews should not find me and bring me to trial."10 

The moral purpose of these stories is clear: Titus who deliberately 
polluted the sanctuary is punished because of his arrogance against 
the God of the Jews. Jews can be defeated in this world, and whoever 
harasses Israel becomes a famous man, but vengeance is taken on him 
in the other world. The persecutors of Israel are but the scourge of 
God's wrath and they ought not to regard their deeds as an achieve­
ment of their own. 

Historically these stories are practically worthless. Josephus re­
mains the only serious non-Roman source to be compared with 
5uetonius' biography and some scattered remarks in Tacitus. Three 
problems will be discussed in the following pages: 

(a) How is Titus represented in Josephus' BellumJudaicum? 
(b) Is his character (as depicted by Josephus) in keeping with the 

general tendency of Josephus' works? 
(c) Having affixed his imprimatur to the BellumJudaicum, could Titus 

be really interested in such publicity? 

I 
Three major qualities of Titus are in the limelight as long as he was 

under the command of his father in Judaea:11 political astuteness and 
diplomatic skill are stressed in connection with his mission to Galba 
and in his dealings with Mucianus ;12 remarkable organizational talent 
and distinction in military operations13 are continuously emphasized. 

Titus' personality as commander-in-chief of the forces in Judaea 
after Vespasian left for Rome (5.39) could be described in one sen­
tence: He was above all always and everywhere present at the side of 

10 Some scholars interpret Titus' illness psychologically as Trabsinn and melancholy 
which affected him after the eruption of Vesuvius and the pestilence in Campania. See 
n.62 infra. 

11 All references from Josephus. unless otherwise stated, are to Bellum Judaicum. 
12 4.498, 4.32; ef. Tac. Hist. 2.77. Cf. M. Fortina, Un generale Romano dell seeolo dell'impero: 

C. LiOnio Muciano (Novara 1955) esp. p.10. 
13 e.g. 5.52,53,61; 3.485-503; 4.70; 4.112-20. 



ZVIYAVETZ 415 

all (5.310).14 His courage was in no dispute and his personal example 
made his troops follow him without hesitation.15 He is described as an 
ideal army commander who plans carefully all his operations, leaving 
no detail unchecked.I6 Titus is an extremely severe and demanding 
officer. His frequent exhortations to his soldiers-free compositions 
of Josephus as they may be-appear natural against this background 
(e.g. 3.472-84),17 

Titus is not a tyrannical commander who endears himself to the 
gregarius miles by neglecting his fellow officers.Is On the contrary, he 
consults rather often with the high commanders in his army (5.491; 
6.132; 6.237). They are loyal to him just as the common soldiers are 
and do not try to snatch victory from him (3.298-300). 

It is perhaps to Josephus' credit that nowhere does he make an 
effort to hide Titus' ruthlessness, but he almost invariably tries to 
attenuate the harsh impression by means of an indulgent sentence: 
He spared no male in Galilean Japho, but women and infants were 
spared, though sold into slavery (3.304). In Jotapata the Romans gave 
no quarter to anyone and thrust the inhabitants down the steep slopes 
of the citadel in a general massacre (3.329). In Tarichaea there was a 
great slaughter without discrimination, but at the last moment Titus 
stopped the massacre (3.501). And in front of the walls of Jerusalem 
Titus ordered the crucifixion of prisoners of war. But he did it only 
hoping that the spectacle might lead others to surrender in dismay 
(5.289-450). 

Syrians disembowelled two thousand Jews who escaped after having 
swallowed gold coins to prevent discovery by the Zealots. Titus 
stopped the massacre (5.421, 552, 556). He did not oppose the killing of 
more than 2,500 Jews by wild beasts in Caesarea Philippi after the 
destruction of the Temple (7.23, 37-39). But when prisoners were 
scourged and subjected to torture of every description before being 
killed, he felt pity for them (5.450). He did not, however, stop the 
cruelties. 

14 cf Tac. Hist. 5.1, cuncta explorans paratusque decernere, or the phrase quod semper, quod 
ubique quod ab omnibus. 

15 3.324,497; 5.82-83, 89, 97,288,340,487,510. 
ta 5.106, 130,292,303; 5.258; 6.163; 6.134, 154; 7.18; 5.121,486,553-55; 5.316; 6.142. 
17 For a detailed analysis of Titus' speeches see W. Weber,Josephus lind Vespasian (Stutt­

gart 1921) 219ff. Cf Tac. Hist. 5.1, comitate et adloquiis officia provocans. 
18 This coincides with Tac. Hist. 5.1, in agmine gregario militi mixtlLs, incorrupto ducis 

hcnore; Suet. Tit. 8.2, maiestate salva nee minus aequitate. See also p. 428 below. 



416 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

Josephus' story of the burning of the Temple is well known. Accord­
ing to him (6.165) the Jews and not Titus started to burn the Temple. 
In the well-known war council Titus explicitly opposed the idea of 
burning the sanctuary (6.236-43). But things went out of control, and 
one of the soldiers, not waiting for orders but moved by some super­
natural impulse (8aLp.ovtcp opp.fi) (6.252), snatched a branch from the 
burning timber and flung the fiery missile through the door. After 
having achieved the victory and before returning to Italy Titus revisit­
ed the ruins of Jerusalem. He contrasted the sorry scene of desolation 
before his eyes with the former splendour of the city, and calling to 
mind the grandeur of its ruined buildings and their pristine beauty, 
he commiserated its destruction (7.111). 

No wonder that some scholars can discern only hypocrisy in Titus' 
behaviour.19 And indeed examples of hypocrisy are not missing in 
Josephus' writings. The soldier who set the temple on fire against the 
explicit wish of the commander was never punished. To mention 
just another minor case: when Arabs, Syrians and some Roman 
soldiers cut open suppliant Jews in order to search their intestines 
for gold coins, Titus reprimanded them but inflicted no capital 
punishment for disobedience; but when some Jews stole horses from 
Roman soldiers, he put a soldier to death for negligence (6.155). 

Massacring Jews (without having been ordered to do so) was not 
crime enough to receive the death penalty. 

But Titus' hypocrisy is a minor issue; the major problem is whether 
Josephus should be believed at all. Bernays,20 analysing the story 
of the destruction of the Temple (6.237456), reached the conclusion 
that Sulpicius Severus' version (ehron.2.30.6) should be accepted. 
Some members of Titus' staff suggested sparing the Temple, but 
Titus himself ordered the sanctuary to be burned down: 

Etenim nonnullis videbatur aedem sacra tam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem, 
non oportere deleri, quae servata, modestiae Romanae testimonium, 
diruta, perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. At contra alii, et Titus ipse, 
evertendum templum, in primis censebant ... 

This passage is believed to depend on Tacitus21 and should therefore 

19 Alon, op.cit. (supra n.6) I.Z06ff. 
20 Jacob Bernays, "Ueber die Chronik. des Sulpidus Severus," in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 

ed. H. Usener, n (Berlin 1885, repro Hildesheim 1971) 159-81. 
21 The passage quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur ... is generally 

believed to be a later Christian interpolation. On the destruction of the Temple in the 



ZVIYAVETZ 417 

be accepted as truthful. Tacitus, according to Bernays, had no obliga­
tions towards the Flavians, did not have to flatter them, and told 
things as they were. Bernays compared this passage with other Latin 
sources (Val.Flac. 1.13; Sil.Ital. 3.600, 605, 607, 629; Suet. Tit. 5) and 
confirmed his view that it was Titus personally who should be blamed 
for the destruction of the Temple. Many others followed Bernays in 
principle but added new arguments. Montefiore does not think that 
Sulpicius Severus necessarily depended on Tacitus and suggested 
Marcus Antonius-a former procurator of Judaea known to have 
written of the Jews-as a more plausible source. On the other hand he 
believes that Titus might have given orders for the Temple to remain 
intact in the knowledge that they could not be carried out. The officers 
must have smiled at Titus' orders.22 

Alon approaches the problem differently. First of all Josephus 
seems to contradict himself: in 7.1 he says explicitly that it was Titus 
who ordered the whole city and the Temple to be razed to the ground. 
Moreover, at Antiquitates Judaicae 20.250 he says that Titus captured 
and set fire to the city and the Temple. The story in BellumJudaicum 
6.254 that Titus ran to the burning Temple in order to arrest the 
conflagration is pure invention. Alon believes that there is enough 
internal evidence in Josephus to prove that Titus intended to destroy 
not only the Temple but the Jews as a nation. He executed deliber­
ately all the priests (6.322), gave his troops permission to burn and sack 
the city of Jerusalem (6.353), and did not punish any of his soldiers who 
killed indiscriminately whomever they encountered (6.404). Eventu­
ally he stopped the massacre, but there was hardly anyone left to be 
worth killing (6.414); and last but not least, Vespasian ordered the 
destruction of the Temple of Onias in Egypt three years later (7.421).23 

Gospels, see Mark 13.2; Matthew 24.2; Luke 21.6. For the impact of the destruction of the 
Temple on Christianity see S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church 
(London 1957), and (by the same author) Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester 1967) with a 
valuable bibliography; C. H. Dodd, "The Fall of Jerusalem and the 'Abomination of 
Desolation',"JRS 37 (1947) 47. 

22 H. Montefiore, "Sulpicius Severus and Titus' Council of War," Historia 11 (1962) 156. 
Cf I. M. Valeton, «Hierosolyma capta," 1\1nemosyne 27 (1899) 78. See Alon, op.cit. (supra 
n.6) 206, for further bibliography. 

23 It is a deplorable fact that Ingomar Weiler did not know of Alon's important paper in 
Hebrew (Hebraica non leguntur). In his article "Titus und die Zerstorung des Tempels 
von Jerusalem: Absicht oder Zufall?" Klio 50 (1968) 139, Weiler analysed correctly the 
contradictions in Josephus, and his conclusions in this respect are not different from Alon's. 
There is, however, no evidence in the sources for his idea on p.154 that Josephus produced a 



418 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

In short, one is easily convinced that Josephus was capable of lying. 
His lies are innumerable.24 But in this case Bernays' and Alon's 
arguments, some of which are debatable, still fail to disclose Josephus' 
motive for not telling the truth. Did he try to endear Titus to the 
Jews by telling them that the Temple was destroyed against the pro­
fessed wish and order of Titus? This can hardly be the case, because 
all other cruelties of Titus are known mainly from the same opus; 
and even if Josephus had proved that Titus was not to be blamed for 
the destruction of the Temple, his general image could hardly im­
prove.25 

I doubt whether Josephus ever intended to depict Titus as the 
friend of the Jewish nation. On the other hand, did he seek to glorify 
Titus in the eyes of Romans or other gentiles? It was hardly necessary 
to wait till the downfall of the Flavians to disclose a well-kept 'state 
secret' that Titus ordered the destruction of the Temple. Cruelty. 
towards barbarians was never considered to be a vice in Rome: jus 
apud cives, modestiam apud socios (Tac. Ann. 1.9) was the general rule 
of behaviour in Rome; parcere subiectis et debellare superbos was a 
virtue. This is precisely how Josephus would have liked to depict 
Titus: a true Roman who would punish the rebels without pity but 
would do his utmost to spare the peace-loving population, agricul­
turallabourers whose only concern was the prospects of the crops 
(4.84-92). In a well-known passage Josephus admits that he intended 
first of all to impress Vespasian and Titus, then many Romans who 
had taken part in the campaign, and eventually Jews versed in Greek 
learning (Contr.Ap. 1.51). 

This leads us towards an answer to another question. Who did 
Josephus expect to accept this characterization of Titus? In the article 

new version of his book in A.D. 75. According to Weiler, Titus wanted to impress Agrippa 
and Berenice, who visited Rome in 75, that the Temple was destroyed in spite ofhis orders, 
and Josephus tried to please his master. Hence the contradictions. One wonders whether 
Weiler's disregard of J. A. Crook's article in AJP 72 (1951) 162 is Absicht oder Zufall. 

24 H. Drexler, "Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jiidischen Auf­
standes 66-70," Klio 19 (1925) 284. 

25 There is no evidence for H. Graetz's suggestion in Geschichte der Juden m (Leipzig 1863) 
403 n.l that Titus may have wished to stay his hand over the destruction of the Temple in 
order to please Berenice. Montefiore, op.cit. (supra n.22) 160, rightly remarks that Titus' 
affair with Berenice does not stand or fall with the safety of the Temple. See however, E. 
Mireaux, La reine Berenice (paris 1961). The best analysis of the problem so far remains 
Crook's excellent article, loc.cit. (supra n.23). 



ZVI YAVETZ 419 

referred to above,26 Baer refutes by means of an exacting critical 
analysis many of Josephus' stories. We need not recount each of them 
individually, but Baer's most convincing argument is worth repeat­
mg. 

Josephus reduced the extent of the internal conflict in Judaea to one 
between peace-lovers and warmongers and ignored its lTIuch deeper 
significance, namely that it was a clash between two fundamentally 
different approaches to Roman domination: the readiness to compro­
mise and submit in order to preserve peace at all costs versus the 
determination to protect social and religious traditions. Writing for 
gentiles, he suppressed any religious problems which he thought 
might be unintelligible for his readers. Instead, he described the 
constitution of Jerusalem in terms of a democracy tempered with 
aristocratic elements after the pattern of Isocrates and Aristotle and 
referred to the nomination of the High Priest by lot in Greek terms 
only, disregarding the true Jewish ancestral practices. In Baer's view, 
any attempt to depict the conflict between High Priests and rural 
priests as merely a struggle between social classes and to divorce it 
from its profound religious milieu is a gross over-simplification of the 
truth (p.147).27 In this direction his elaborations are illuminating. 
It seems to me, however, that Baer overdoes his search for topoi 
taken from Greek literature in Josephus' historical writing; e.g. while 
rejecting Thackeray'S contention28 that John of Gischala's figure is 
modelled on Sallust's Catilina he maintains that the real prototype is 
the Cleon of Thucydides and of Aristophanes' comedies.29 The Idu­
means of Jerusalem bear a striking resemblance to Thracians in Greek 
literature ;30 the struggle between the wealthy and the poor in the 
besieged Jerusalem echoes Lysias' account of the reign of the Thirty 
Tyrants in Athens; and the situation in Jerusalem after the fall of the 
Galilee reflects that in Athens after the disaster. 

It is not impossible to apply Baer's method even to the character of 
Titus himself, and to show that its delineation by Josephus is but the 
outcome of a Graeco-Roman literary commonplace concerning a 
successful military commander. There are many points of similarity 
between what Josephus said about him with respect to relations 

26 See n.7 supra. 
27 For Baer's general concept of history see Israel Baamim [Hebrew] Oerusalem 1955), and 

his important article in Molad 1964, "The Mishna and History" [Hebrew] pp.308-23. 
26 H. St. J. Thackeray,fosephus the Man and the Historian (New York 1929) 119. 
29 Baer, op.cit. (supra n.7) 141. 30 Baer, op.cit. (supra n.7) 152. 



420 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

between soldier and commander and what Livy and Cornelius Nepos 
say about great generals. And the scene in which he surveys the ruins 
of Jerusalem is strongly reminiscent of Scipio Aemilianus' inspection 
of Carthage which he had razed to the ground CAppo Pun. 132). 

Such a method, however, may sometime reduce history to the ut­
most absurdities. Some tyrants in various Greek cities seem to have 
borne similar features. This may be accepted as a plain historical fact, 
and it would be a waste of time to seek an Urquelle of all the stories 
about them. There were likewise similar phenomena in the stasis of 
411 B.C. in Athens and the one of A.D. 69 in Rome. But just for this 
reason one is not justified in tracing back all accounts of stasis in our 
sources to a topos. It would be much sounder to assume that similar 
circumstances in different places and in different periods engender 
similar phenomena. 

It is a fact that Josephus misleads his readers by using Greek ter­
minology for Jewish problems. For this his Greek assistants may be 
partly blamed. The Aramaic version being lost, the truth will never 
be known, but not all the facts related in Josephus are to be dis­
believed. 

I do not intend to defend Josephus' overall veracity. On the con­
trary, I believe that he belongs among those historians whose pro­
cedure was well described by Churchill: "Give me the facts, Ashley, 
and I will twist them the way I want to suit my argument."31 He 
did so especially when he tried to defend himself. It is possible for 
a modern historian to find out which argument suited Josephus best 
and hence disclose why and in which direction he twisted some basic 
facts. This cannot be achieved by analysing literary topoi and using 
rigid philological methods. It is possible to analyse whether the des­
cription of Titus in Josephus' writings fits into his general framework 
and purpose. This method will certainly not disclose the whole truth, 
but it may help to clarify some obscure points. And this leads to a 
second question: Is Titus' character in keeping with the general 
tendency of Josephus' works? 

II 
After having dealt at some length with the Roman army C3.70ff) 

Josephus states that it was not his major intention to extol the Romans. 

31 M. Ashley. Churchill as Historian (London 1968) 18. 



ZVIYAVETZ 421 

Nevertheless, he makes it clear no\v and again that there was nothing 
greater than the Roman army (3.70), that God was on the Roman side 
(5.369,412), and to scorn meaner masters might be indeed legitimate, 
but not those to whom the universe was subject (5.365-66). 

It seems that Josephus did not reach the firm conclusion-that war 
against Rome was futile-only in his old age when he wrote his vita 
(17-20) in order to defend himself against Justus of Tiberias. This must 
have been his genuine view from the days of his early manhood, 
when at the age of 26 he visited Rome and was impressed by her 
grandeur.32 He never believed in Rome's collapse, not even during 
the year of the four emperors, and never wagered on the Parthians 
(7.78, 79, cf Tac. Rist. 4.54). His attitude to the war was ambivalent 
from the very beginning. When he accepted the command in the 
Galilee33 he hardly believed in a Jewish victory. This must have been 
his biggest fault: to lead people in a cause in which he never believed 
without serious doubts. And I think that his split personality should 
be interpreted against this background.34 

In 3.108 he declares the purposes of his work: (a) to console those 
who were conquered by the Romans (i.e. the Jews); (b) to deter others 
who may be tempted to revolt. By 'others' he could have had in mind 
not only other Jews but also gentiles in Asia Minor who might have 
hoped for Parthian help (e.g. 1.6, 2.388 etc.). 

But the real undercurrent in his whole work is that Jews and 
Romans are two great nations.3s War between these two nations was 
not inevitable and peaceful co-existence was a real possibility, if wild 
extremists on both sides-Zealots on one hand and greedy procura­
tors on the other-had not dragged the two nations into an unneces­
sary clash. There were good and bad people on both sides (e.g. 3.335, 
4.60 etc.). But the strongest strictures are reserved for those Jews who 
insisted on fighting against the Romans to the bitter end. 

32 Cf. R. J. Shutt, Studies injosephus (London 1961) 3. 
33 I cannot discuss here the problem whether it was Josephus' mission to pacify the Galilee 

(Vit. 29) or to organize further resistance against Rome (Bj2.562ff). 
34 This is in agreement mainly with Thackeray, loc.dt. (supra n.28), and A. Momigliano 

in CAH X (1934) 884. For a different view of Josephus' Vita see M. Gelzer, Hermes 80 (1952) 
67-90. 

36 When in 6.13 Josephus praises the fortitude of soul of the Jews that could surmount 
faction, famine and other calamities, he is sincere. I do not think that he praises the Jews 
only to enhance the achievement of the Roman victory even more. This is Weber's (op.cit. 
[supra n.7] 211) view: Josephus' aim was" die Besiegten als gross, die Sieger als um so mach­
tiger zu erweisen." 



422 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

Jews were plagued by war, tyranny and faction (4.397).36 Titus him­
self asserted that the Jewish people owed its ruin to civil strife, and 
that the Jewish tyrants brought down upon the holy Temple the un­
willing hands of the Romans (1.10). The Romans may well be found 
to have been the upholders of our laws. The real enemy was within 
the walls of besieged Jerusalem (4.184). Civil war paved the way to 
famine. The city was converted into a desolate no-man's-land for 
domestic warfare, and almost all the corn which might have sufficed 
for many years of siege was destroyed (5.25, 26). Dreary and famine­
stricken, the city was exposed to daily atrocities (5.429ff). Jews 
suffered nothing worse at the hands of the Romans than what they 
inflicted upon each other. It was sedition that subdued the city, and 
all the tragedy may be ascribed to her own people (5.527). Such 
explanations were not alien to Jewish minds. Talmudic legends (e.g. 
Gittin 55b-56a) may illustrate the point. 

But of course not all Jews were seditious. There were some excel­
lent people too, who were not allowed to handle the difficult situa­
tion. Such a man was Ananus, the senior of the chief priests, a man of 
profound sanity, who might have possibly saved the city of Jeru­
salem had he escaped the hands of the extremists (4.151).37 Josephus 
would have liked to appear in Jewish history as another Ananus who 
unfortunately recognized the hopeless circumstances at an early 
stage.3S He knew that no one would listen to his advice, and had he 
remained in Jerusalem and fought for his ideas, his fate could have 
been similar to that of Ananus. 

Josephus was aware of the fact that after his defection some people 
accused him as a coward, others as a traitor, and throughout the city 
there was general indignation and curses heaped upon (Chis devoted 
head" (3.432-39). He could not hope to be compared with a Jeremiah 
(5.391) or a Jehohachim (6.105). Jews were never prepared to compare 
a renegade who acted as an adviser of moderation in Titus' headquar­
ters with a Jeremiah who preached for moderation within the be-

as On the implication of Greek terms in the writings of Josephus, see Baer, op.cit. (supra 
n.7) passim. 

87 For Ananus' character see 4.315-20; on 4.163 see Baer, op.cit. (supra n.7) 147 n.n and 
149 n.84, and his interpretation of it as typical literary theft. 

38 The possibility that many years later Josephus changed his view about Ananus (Vita 
194ft" and AJ 20.199ff) is discussed and refuted by J. Efron, "The Sanhedrin, Vision and 
Reality" [Hebrew], Doron [Festschift Katz] (Tel Aviv 1967) 167-204, esp. 201ft". 



ZVIYAVETZ 423 

sieged walls of Jerusalem.39 Josephus had to resign himself to the 
hatred of his people whenever he appeared outside the walls (5.547), 
but he would have loved to be remembered as another Ananus who 
did everything for the public welfare and not for his private interests 
(4.320). Had gentle men like Josephus and Ananus survived to lead the 
Jewish nation in the tragic days of 66-70, an understanding between 
Jews and Romans would certainly have been reached. They would 
have found a congenial counterpart in the Roman camp-Titus.40 

Josephus is convinced by the clemency of the Romans towards 
alien races, by Titus' anxiety to save the Temple (1.27), and by the 
fact that the burning of the Temple happened contrary to Caesar's 
wishes (1.28). In 1.10 we read that throughout the war Titus commis­
erated the populace who were at the mercy of the revolutionaries and 
often of his own accord deferred the capture of the city by protracting 
the siege to give the culprits time for repentance. 

It is this conception that made Josephus describe Titus as he did. 
Personal ties, of course, should not be underestimated. Titus was his 
benefactor, and Josephus owed him a great deal.41 He was given 
Roman citizenship, and with a pension assigned to him he could start 
to write the History of the Jewish War, IIep;' TOU 'IovDatKoU 7ToA€!-'ov, a 
title clearly showing his original point of view.42 Roman official 
sources were put at his disposal, and the general purpose of a book 
written in such an atmosphere is obvious. Titus could expect little 
less than a panegyric (4.597). 

Josephus' deSCription of Titus' cruelty and ruthlessness, however, 
must be taken up again. According to Josephus, these were forced 
upon him and he committed them reluctantly (5.442-44, 455; 6.118-
124, 128, 215-16). The real villains were the Jewish extremists. They 
divorced soul from body, and all remorse from evil was extinct 
(5.526). There is no word of understanding for the rebels. The fact 
that many of them had already been defeated once (in the Galilee) 
and that they might have known the Roman custom to treat more 

39 H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden III.2 (Leipzig 1906) 558. 
'0 For a different interpretation see Weber, op.cit. (supra n.17) 215: "Fuhrer treten aus 

dem Haufen der Juden nicht hervor. Titus wird selbst mit diesen judischen Massen kon­
frontiert, die ungegliedert hauptlos, ihr Werk tun." 

U For Titus' pleadings to save Josephus' life and liberty see 3.397, 408; 4.628; Titus 
repressing outbursts against Josephus, Vito 416-17; cf. Ap. 1.48; sending a rescuing party 
5.542, cf. 5.261; gifts and favours, Vito 418-23; protection in Rome, ibid. 428-29. 

U Thackeray, op.cit. (supra n.28). 



424 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

ruthlessly those who had been defeated twice43 did not occur to him. 
On the contrary, he believed that they left Titus no other choice44 

and many times mistook his humanity for weakness (5.335: cf. 6.324; 
5.340; 5.419; 6.356). They regarded Titus' overtures as due to his in­
ability to be really harsh, and indeed Titus razes to the ground enemy 
fortifications only after long and stubborn fighting and only then 
when he can show no mercy (5.347). Only after having been double­
crossed by the ruses of his enemy, he loses his patience and exerts his 
tremendous power to its fullest extent (5.319-30,333). But even then he 
does it reluctantly, and the topos 7T<fALV 7Tp6C 7T(JA€/LoV aKWV €XdJP€L (6.130) 
appears ad nauseam in the BellumJudaicum. All that because Titus was a 
man with innate love for human beings, TO </JLAav(JpW7TOV CPVC€L (6.324 
and 357). 

Such a characterization of Titus could hardly convince a Jew be­
tween the years A.D. 70-80. But Josephus never intended to convince 
them and-as said before-he did not hope to be able to do so. He 
read Titus' memoirs (Vita 358) and keeping in mind his potential 
readers (Contr.Ap. 1.51) decided out of personal gratitude to delineate 
his saviour as a man imbued with €7TLdK€La and /LeyaAocppocuvT] (AJ 
12.128). 

It is difficult to assess exact Latin equivalents for Greek philosophi­
cal terms.45 It is doubtful whether Josephus or his assistants knew 
exactly the differences and nuances of €7TL€{K€La, 7Tpq.OTT]C, cpLAav(Jpw7T{a, 

but it is plausible to assume that they would have hoped a Roman 
reader would translate T6 cpLAav(Jpw7ToV CPUC€L by natura clemens. 

Clementia was a typical Herrschertugend, a virtue of rulers and an 
important one: maxime tamen decora imperatoribus (Sen. De Clem. 
1.5.2), for in rulers it has an especial comeliness inasmuch as with 
them it finds more to save. Clementia is that which restrains the mind 

43 Tac. Ann. 3.45.4, intolerantior servitus iterum victis. It seems to have been customary 
for Roman generals not to negotiate for peace except with people who have surrendered: 
Liv.40.25. 

"Sulpidus Severus, however, denies the fact that Jews were given opportunities of 
peaceful surrender: Nulla neque pads neque deditionis copia dabatur (Chron. 2.30.3); if. Casso 
Dio 66(65).5.3, who says that at first Titus offered immunity to the besieged, but when he 
saw that some of the prisoners of war defected and harassed the Roman troops, he no 
longer received Jewish deserters. 

45 M. Fuhrmann, "Die Alleinherrschaft und das Problem der Gerechtigkeit," Gymnasium 
70 (1963) 481ff.; H. Dahlmann, "Clementia Caesaris," NJbb 10 (1934) 17; M. Treu, "Clemen­
tia Caesaris," MusHelv 5 (1948) 197; T. Adam, Clementia Principis (Stuttgart 1970); S. 
Weinstock, DivusJulius (Oxford 1971) 233ff; esp. Diod. 32.4.1; Polyb. 5.10.1. 



ZVIYAVETZ 425 

from vengeance when it has the power to take it, or leniency of a 
superior to\vards an inferior in fixing a punishment (De Clem. 2.3.1)­
lenitas superioris adversus inftriorem in constituendis poenis.46 

A decree of an emperor in those days could decide what nations 
should utterly be destroyed, which banished, which should receive 
the gift of liberty, which have it taken from them, what kings should 
becomes slaves and whose heads should be adorned with royal 
honour, what cities should fall and which should rise (ibid. 1.1.2). 
Clementia and misericordia are by no means identical. Pity is a vice: 
misericordia vitium est animorum nimis miseria paventium (De Clem. 
2.6.4). Pity is a weakness of the mind that is overmuch perturbed 
by suffering, and if anyone requires it from a sapiens, that is very much 
like requiring him to wail and moan at the funeral of strangers. 

One should not remit a punishment one ought to exact (2.7.3). 

To pardon (ignoscere) is to fail to punish one whom you judge worthy 
of punishment that is due (2.7.3).47 Clementia has also freedom in 
decision (liberum arbitrium habet), but pardoning should not be too 
common. \Vhen distinction between the good and the bad is removed 
the result is confusion and epidemic vice (1.2.2). Therefore clementia 
should not be indiscriminate or general. It is as much cruelty to 
pardon all as to pardon none. Nec promiscuam habere ac vulgarem 
clementiam oportet nec abscissam. Nam tam omnibus ignoscere crudelitas 
quam nulli. 

As a matter of fact, clementia rather corresponds to severitas just as 
misericordia corresponds to crudelitas. A tyrant punishes because he 
finds pleasure in torturing innocent people. This is saevitia. Kings 
punish only for a reason and by necessity (1.11.4). 

Seneca's De Clementia48 is dedicated to a young Nero, reluctant to 
sign a death sentence for two brigands and exclaiming, Vellem litteras 
nescirem (2.1.2). Vespasian was anxious to save Helvidius' life, although 
he banished him and later ordered his death. This is what Suetonius 

46 R. Syme, Tacitus I (Oxford 1958) 414 n.4; in Republican days Cicero extolled his own 
lenitas and misericordia, and Sallust did not use the term clementia in relation to Caesar. 
Moreover, Caesar himself (in a letter to Oppius) condemning the cruelty of others empha­
sizes his own lenitas (but not his clementia), ut quam lenissimum me praeberem et Pompeium 
darem operam ut reconciliarem (Cic. Att. 9.7c), and Cato preferred suicide to Caesar's clementia 
(Plut. Cat.Min. 72.2). 

47 In Cicero clementia is ignoscere = poenam sce/eris praetermittere and is not one of the four 
cardinal virtues: prudentia, iustitia,fortitudo and temperantia (De inv. 2.159-(4). See Adam 
op.cit. (supra n.45) 85. 

48 On clementia and its relationship to iustitia see T. Adam, op.cit. (supra n.45) 98ff. 



426 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

tells us, and he adds that Vespasian never took pleasure in the death 
of anyone but even wept and sighed over those who suffered merited 
punishment (Suet. Vesp. 15). 

This is precisely how Titus behaved in Judaea. He punished the 
rebels because he had to do so, but he did it reluctantly. He tried to 
make them surrender; they refused and made it impossible for Titus 
to say like Augustus (Res Gestae 3), Externas gentes, quibus tuto ignosci 
potuit, conservare quam excidere malui. The Jewish rebels never asked 
for venia, and Titus had to act like a true Roman: prove that severitas 
and clementia are both virtues. Having dealt elsewhere at some length 
with the strong concern of Roman politicians and emperors about 
their public reputation,49 I need not repeat the details here.50 Suffice 
it to say that highest and lowest admired rulers for their clementia 
(De Clem. 1.1.9). Augustus' merciful behaviour towards Lepidus made 
him popular and beloved, and he preserved his reputation for many 
years after his death (1.10.1).51 

Titus probably did not know the Stoic theory concerning clementia. 
But it was commonplace in those days in Rome that clementia makes 
rulers not only more honoured but also safer (De Clem. 1.11.4). And 
it was impossible to imagine anything more seemly for a ruler than 
the quality of clementia (1.19.1): Excogitare nemo quicquam poterit quod 
magis decorum regenti sit, quam clementia.52 

Josephus must have understood that it would do no harm to his 
benefactor Titus, designated to succeed Vespasian, if he should build 
up his public reputation as a man imbued with clementia even towards 
an enemy like the Jews. As a matter of fact it was precisely during the 
years when the BellumJudaicum was written and published that Titus 
badly needed a trumpeter53 for his clementia. Bad tongues spread 
malicious rumours in Rome which might have incriminated Titus 
even with his father's death (Cass.Dio 66.17.1). This leads to our last 
question. 

49 Z. Yavetz,Plebs and Princeps (Oxford 1969) 133, and HSCP78 (1974) 37-65. 
50 See especially Sen. Clem. 1.8.1, 8.6,9.6,15.5. 
51 For Titus' moderation praised many years after his death see Philostr. VA 6.29. I have 

not been able to consult F. Grosso, "La morte di Tiro," in 'Avri8wpov U.E. Paoli oblatum 
(Genoa 1956) 137-62. 

62 Fundamental still is M. P. Charlesworth, "The Virtues of a Roman Emperor," Proe 
BritAe 23 (1937); H-G. Simon, Histonsehe Interpretation zur Reichspritgung der Kaiser 
Vespasian und Titus (Diss. Marburg 1952); and recently H Gesche, "Datierung und Deutung 
der CLEMENTIAB-MoDERATIoNI-Dupondien des Tiberius," JbNG 21 (1971) 37-80. 

53 e.g. Cic. Fam. 16.21.2, te buecinatorem fore existimationis meae. 



ZVIYAVETZ 427 

III 
A literary analysis of Titus' biography by Suetonius may lead to the 

conclusion that it is the sort of panegyric to be encountered in the 
fragment of the Germanicus vita incorporated in the Caligula vita 
(1-7).54 There are, however, some passages in the biography which are 
far from being panegyric. It is even stated that Titus incurred such 
odium that hardly anyone ever came to the throne with so evil a 
reputation or so much against the desires of all.55 

Rumour was a decisive factor in forming public opinion, and it 
hardly mattered whether it was based on truth or not.56 Titus' case 
is a good example. Before he came to the throne he was blamed for 
his cruelty (saevitia, Suet. Tit. 7.1), which is a typical quality of tyrants. 
He was secondly suspected of luxuria since he protracted his revels 
until the middle of the night with the most prodigal of his friends. 
His libido was notorious because of his passion for Berenice, and it was 
said Cftrebatur) that he promised her marriage. He was also suspected 
of greed (rapacitas), and it was well known that in cases which came 
before his father he put a price on his influence and accepted bribes. 
In short, people not only thought but openly declared that he would 
be a second Nero: Denique propalam alium Neronem et opinabatur et 
praedicabant (Suet. Tit. 7.1).57 

Chronologically this description fits the period A.D. 71-79. After 
Titus' return from the East he became V espasian' s partner and pro­
tector: Neque ex eo destitit participem atque etiam tutorem imperii agere 
(Suet. Tit. 6.1). He took part in his father's triumph, became his col­
league in tribunician power, assumed command of the praetorian 
guard, became censor in 73 and held seven consulships.58 It was dur-

5& F. Leo, Die griechisch-riimische Biograpltie I (Leipzig 1901, repro Hildesheim 1965) 9. For a 
different view see W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biographie (Zetemata 1, Munchen 1963) 
106. See also G. Luck, "Ober Sue tons Divus Titus," RhM 107 (1964) 63, who sees the same 
relationship between Vespasian and Titus as between Augustus and Germanicus. 

55 Suet. Tit. 6.2. On the murder of Caecina see Suet. ibid.; Cass.Dio 66(65).3.16.3; 
66.1O.2a. On Eprius Marcellus PIR2 E 84; on A. Caecina Alienus PIR2 C 99. 

56 HSCP 78 (1974) 37ff, and especially my paper "Forte an dolo principis" in Studies 
dedicated to C. E. Stevens (Oxford 1975) 181ff. 

57 ForVespasian's efforts to disconnect himself from the Neronian tradition, see especially 
M. P. Charlesworth, "Flaviana," JRS 27 (1937) 54ff. Is it an accident that just when Titus 
became anti-Neronian a false Nero appeared? Cass.Dio 66.19.3b; cf F. Millar, A Study in 
Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 214ff. 

58 See B. Grenzheuser, Kaiser und Senat in der Zeit von Nero bis Nerva (Muenster 1964) 86. 
M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge 



428 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

ing this period that he had to take upon himself the discharge of 
almost all the duties. And as usual, all his good deeds went to the credit 
of his father, while the dirty jobs which were assigned to him harmed 
his own reputation. Suetonius had to admit, however, that eventually 
his reputation turned to the highest praise, no fault was discovered in 
him any more, and people had good things to say about him. At illi 
fama pro bono cessit conversaque est in maximas laudes (Suet. Tit. 7.1). 

It would not be wise to scorn Suetonius' chronology in all his biog­
raphies. True, he once confessed to write neque per tempora sed per 
species (Suet. Aug. 9.1). But in the biography of Titus this principle does 
not work, and Tacitus' testimony is decisive: Laetam voluptatibus 
adulescentiam egit, suo quam patris imperio moderatior (Tac. Rist. 2.2). 

Our sources are unanimous in telling us that after Titus' accession 
to the throne he made an immense effort to change his image. Re­
appearance of Augustan types on Titus' coinage is conspicuous:j9 

The new emperor would try to imitate the behaviour of the founder 
of the Principate. He would endeavour to gain the good will of the 
masses without humiliating the members of the upper classes. He 
would attend gladiatorial games and public baths-however preserv­
ing his dignity as well as observing justice: Verum maiestate salva nee 
minus aequitate (Suet. Tit. 8.2). Indeed his whole behaviour changed. 
His banquets were pleasant rather than extravagant (Suet. Tit. 7.2, 
iucunda magis quam profusa), and Dio emphasizes that he was frugal in 
money matters and made no unnecessary expenditures (66.19.3a; 
Zon. 11.18.16-18, p.55 Dindorf). No more luxuria and no more libido 
either. He sent Berenice away from Rome at once, against her will 
and against his own. He ceased to cherish dancers, put an end to his 
rapacitas and became famous for his munificentia. He took away noth­
ing from any citizen, respected other people's property and, although 
many kept offering and promising him large sums, he accepted noth­
ing from any citizen, city60 or king (Cass.Dio 66.24.4). After the erup-

1961) 44ff. Cf. Weynand's fundamental article in RE 6 (1909) 2695-2729, and Simon, op.cit. 
(supra n.52). Titus was consul in 70, 72,74,75,76,77 and 79. For his consulates see A. Degrassi, 
lfasti consolari del/'Impero Romano (Rome 1952), with R. Syme, jRS 43 (1953) 148-61, and 
A. E. Gordon, "Vespasian and Titus as Consuls A.D. 70," CP 50 (1955) 194. 

59 K. H. Waters, "The Second Dynasty of Rome," Phoenix 17 (1963) 211. 
60 See for instance his letter to the city of Munigua (in Beatica) which borrowed money 

from a contractor (Servilius Pollio), failed to repay him, lost the case in court and appealed 
to the emperor. Titus wrote among other things: "I have preferred to pay regard to my 
indulgence rather than to your rashness and have excused the 50,000 sesterces ... which 



ZVIYAVETZ 429 

tion of Vesuvius he sent two ex-consuls to Campania to support the 
restoration of the region (Cass.Dio 66.23.5); the property of those who 
had lost their lives and had no heirs he applied to the rebuilding of 
the buried cities (Suet. Tit. 8.4). During the fire in Rome (in A.D. 80) he 
set aside all the ornaments of his villas for the public buildings and 
temples and put several men of the equestrian order in charge of the 
work. During the plague which affected Rome after the fire he made 
great efforts to diminish the force of the epidemic (Suer. ibid.). He 
gave most magnificent shows, and Dio gives a detailed description of 
some remarkable spectacles (66.25). He granted favours to many 
people, and when his officials warned him that he was promising 
more than he could perform, he said that it was not right for anyone 
to go away from an interview sorrowful (Suet. Tit. 8.1). And most 
important of all, no more saevitia: he banished the informers from 
Rome (Cass.Dio 66.19.3; cf. Suet. Tit. 8.5); never entertained cases on 
the charge of maiestas (Cass.Dio 66.19.1); put no senator to death, nor 
was anyone slain during his rule (ib. 19.1, cf 18.1); and he was said to 
have sworn that he would rather be killed than kill, sed periturum se 
potius perditurum adiurans (Suet. Tit. 9.1). These points need no further 
elaboration. They have been exhaustively treated in various works by 
modern historians.61 

Whether his personality went through a deep change remains a 
matter of conjecture. Psychologists should not be let loose on the 
dead (Namier).62 What is certain is that he succeeded in changing his 

you plead: sed ego malui cum indulgentia mea quam cum temeritati vestra Ioqui" (AEpigr 1962, 
288). On Titus defending the procedure in a trial against Hermias see C. H. Roberts, "Titus 
and Alexandria," JRS 39 (1949) 77. On the provincial setup in the days of Titus see W. Eck, 
Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (MUnchen 1970) 6. 

61 Only the most important contributions may be briefly mentioned here: Crook, op.cit. 
(supra n.23) 162, which analyses the political factions in the days of the Flavians, is illuminat­
ing and still the most important. For Titus' connections in the east see E. G. Turner, 
"Tiberius Julius Alexander," JRS 44 (1954) 54. M. A. Levi, "La clemenza di Tito," ParPass 
9 (1954) 288, and esp. p.292, seems to discern "una maggiore tendenza ad assumere impegni 
programatici con 1'0riente," but when he became princeps he endeavoured ''l'esclusione di 
ogni elemento interpretabile come filellenismo 0 politica orientalizzante." M. Hammond, 
"Composition of the Senate A.D. 68-235,"jRS 47 (1957) 74-81, has shown that the process of 
replacement of Italian senators by provincials was slow and gradual and that under the 
Flavians the number of oriental senators was still insignificant. For the opposition of the 
philosophers see the stimulating article by J. M. C. Toynbee, "Dictators and Philosophers in 
the First Century A.D.," G&R 13 (1944) 43. 

62 See e.g. A. Beule, Titus und seine Dynastie, transi. E. Doehler (Halle 1875) 102, "Als 
Kronprinz: blutdUrstig, habgierig, wolllistig"; p.I06, HAls Kaiser: Die Nachgiebigkeit ging 



430 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

public image63 and in a short time endeared himself to all. Dio 
(66.18.4) doubts whether Titus would have remained as popular had 
he lived longer, and following him Syme64 remarks sardonically, 
"The favourites of the Roman People died young." Popularity and 
long life were hardly compatible. Indeed, after his death people 
heaped such praise on him as they had never done when he was alive 
(Suet. Tit. 11). 

One should accept without any doubt the fact that Titus' popularity 
with the soldiers aroused suspicisions in various quarters in Rome 
(Suet. Tit. 5.2; Tac. Hist. 5.1). And many a senator might have re­
marked "mihi caligae eius non placent" (Cic. ad Att. 2.3.1). Stories about 
his savageries in Judaea were added to his successes as a praefectus 
praetorio of his father, and his enemies did not find it difficult to brand 
him as saevus. Before ascending the throne, Titus might have wel­
comed any effort to change his image into clemens. Josephus must 
have known the situation and as a faithful client understood the hint. 
He described Titus as a man imbued with clementia and hence his 
terminology 'TO cptAaVOpW7ToV CPUCE£ (6.324). Titus' picture as it emerges 
from this work reflects much more prevalent attitudes in the society 
in which Josephus moved when writing it than any real historical 
person acting in Judaea. 

But is it really true that Titus was so anxious to see Josephus' book 
become the sole authority from which the world should learn the 
facts about the Jewish War? As a matter of fact, Titus affixed his own 
signature to them and ordered their publication (Vit. 361). It is of 
course true that Rome perpetuated Josephus' memory. His statue 
was erected in the city and his works placed in public libraries (Eus. 
Hist.Eccl. 3.9). 

iiber in Schwache, GroBmut in verschwenderische Freigebigkeit, clas Gehenlassen in 
Unbekiimmertheit-Mildtatigkeit in Monogamie." Against his view: B. Wolff-Beckh, 
"Kaiser Titus und cler jiidische Krieg, mit einem Nachwort von P. J. Mobius," Nfbb 11 

(1903) 449-79. But Dr Mobius leaves no illusions: the present source material does not 
enable a doctor to make a diagnosis of Titus' state of health: "Ein sicheres Urteil ist nicht 
moglich. Non liquet" (p.479). It is also worth mentioning that the elder Pliny did not think 
that fortune's grandeur made any change in Titus. It only enabled him to bestow all the 
benefits he desired (HN praef 3). 

63 Suet. Tit 1.1 thinks that this was not an easy task while he was emperor (difficillimum est 
in imperio) since during his father's rule he was hated. This statement can be doubted. 
With power in his hands and means of propaganda under his control it was probably not 
very difficult to achieve a better reputation 

64 Syme, op.cit. (supra n.46) 1.45. 



ZVIYAVETZ 431 

But some skepticism is warranted. History books, even if they 
appear to be works of propaganda, are taken less seriously by emper­
ors or politicians in whose favour they have been written than by 
students or professors of history. Luce seems to exaggerate when he 
sums up an (in all other respects) excellent article on Livy with the 
words, "Instead of searching for Augustan allusions in Livian history, 
it might be more profitable to investigate to what extent Augustan 
policy was influenced by the Livian concept of the past."65 

History books were never a major means of propaganda. The Roman 
masses never read books, and it is doubtful whether Roman senators 
considered the opus of the Jewish historian a best seller. It seems that 
Josephus genuinely respected Titus and praised his benefactor on his 
own initiative. In the days of the republic Lucceius had to be reminded 
by Cicero (in a letter which did not blush) that the orator could not 
praise himself. He needed the services of another herald so as not to 
proclaim himself victor with his own voice (Fam. 5.12.8). But Titus 
was not Cicero. Neither was Josephus a Lucceius. It would be over­
simplification to believe that Titus asked for a panegyric. Of course, 
he did not mind, just as Augustus may not have been totally indif­
ferent to Livy's history. But Livy and Augustus were never intimate 
friends,66 and the relationship between Josephus and the upper classes 
in Rome still remains to be studied. 

It seems that Titus' simulatory gifts must have made it easy for 
him to act as a genuinely clemens princeps, and Josephus' panegyric 
was only of secondary importance.67 It is doubtful whether a Roman 
emperor considered friendship with Josephus to be an asset. He was 
never awarded the official title of amicus Caesaris.68 He was not among 
his comites. He must have been a member of the lower entourage, 

65 T. J. Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade," TAPA 96 (1965) 240. 
66 An unpublished paper by E. Badian, read in a seminar at Tel Aviv University in 1972; 

compare P. G. Walsh, "Livy and Augustus," ProcAfrCA 4 (1961) 26ff; R. Syme, "Livy and 
Augustus," HSCP 64 (1959) 27-87. 

67 Suetonius was aware of Titus' ability to win in a short time the affection of all men and 
thinks that he managed to do so by nature, art and good fortune. Compare Luck, op.cit. 
(supra n.54), who replaces fortuna with forma. Another modern scholar (Weynand, op.cit. 
[supra n.58] 2728) has a different interpretation: "der rezeptiv veranlagte und geistig 
gewandte Titus eine Schauspielernatur war, die sich, wie er fremde Handschriften nach­
ahmte, ohne Mtihe in verschiedene Personlichkeitsmasken stecken konnte und sich darin 
wohl fiihlte." 

68 J. A. Crook, Consi/imn Principis (Oxford 1955) 48-52. On Titus' amici see Suet. Tit. 7 
versus Cass.Dio 67.2.1. 



432 REFLECTIONS ON TITUS AND JOSEPHUS 

in the same category as doctors and magicians, philosophers and 
buffoons.69 

In spite of his victory Titus never became ]udaicus'-perhaps 
because of the religious connotation of the term;70 and Tacitus in 
sketching the history of the Jews preferred other sources to Josephus. 
He might have read him but never quoted him.71 In Jewish tradition, 
his fate was similar. His name was never mentioned by Tanaim or 
Amoraim, and only Christian historians enhanced his reputation. 
For Hieronymus he was a Graecus Livius, for Cassiodorus a paene 
secundus Livius. For his Jewish redemption he had to wait for the 
Middle Ages. In spite of his efforts Josephus must have been a very 
lonely man in his old age.72 

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY and THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY 
July, 1975 

69 Cf. R. Syme, "Some Friends of the Caesars," A]P 77 (1956) 271; S. Townend, "Some 
Flavian Connections," ]RS 51 (1961) 54. 

70 So, my colleague, Professor Y. Efron. Professor Christian Habicht has suggested an­
other conjecture: The Jewish War was a seditio; from a Roman point of view Titus headed 
only a police action, and his victory did not lead to acquisition of new territories. If this 
were really so, is it not strange that Titus celebrated a triumph and that the victory over 
the Jews was not easily forgotten? Cass.Dio 66.7.2 states explicitly that all the honours 
that were fitting on the occasion of so magnificent a victory were offered to Vespasian and 
Titus. But neither got the title 'Judaicus'. In an inscription Titus is praised for having been 
the first to conquer Jerusalem-of course under the auspices of his father. See crL VI 944= 
ILS 264: Quod prcl£ceptis patris consiliisque et auspiciis gentem Judaeorum domuit et urbem 
Hieruso!ymam omniblls ante se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut omnino in temp­
tatam de/evit. Cf. Th. Mommsen, Rlimische Geschichte V (Berlin 1885) 538 n.1; H. Instinsky, 
"Der Ruhm des Titus," Philologus 97 (1948) 370. Moreover, Titus was associated with his 
father in the triumphal arch of the victory (Cass.Dio 65.12.1a), and the destruction of the 
Temple became the subject of official propaganda on the imperial coinage. For references 
see Montefiore, op.cit. (supra n.22) 161 n.2. For a completely different attitude to the quell­
ing of the Pannonian revolt (A.D. 6-9) see K. Christ, "Antike Siegespragungen," Gymnasium 
64 (1957) 517-19. The question deserves further attention. 

71 D. Timpe, "Romische Geschichte bei Flavius Josephus," Historia 9 (1960) 474, deals 
mainly with A] Books 19 and 20. Cf. E. Norden, "Josephus und Tacitus tiber Jesus Christus 
und eine messianische Prophetie," N]bb 16 (1913) 637 (= Zur ]osephus·Forschung, ed. A. Schalit 
[Wege d. Forsch. 84, Darmstadt 1973] 27). 

72 An early draft of this paper was read at the Classical seminars of Columbia and Har­
vard Universities and completed while visiting the Institute for Advanced Study in Prince­
ton. I would like to express my thanks to Professors G. Bowersock, Chr. Habicht and J. F. 
Gilliam for discussing various topics with me.