The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

that within the same work the statement: Chuonradus filius imperatoris — patri rebellare infamatur
(under the year 1093) can be found in the part adopted from Frutolf, while within Ekkehard’s
own creation [the text] reads about this same man: vir per omnia catholicus et apostolicae sedi
subiectissimus (under the year 1099). Here we remind ourselves of the fact that in Josephus’
Antiquities under similar conditions a varying evaluation of Herod was expressed: one was
extracted from the source, the other reflected Josephus’ true opinion.
[243] Ekkehard did not stop with this work that is so internally contradictory, which exists in
a manuscript in Jena and was designated by Waitz as version B. When the rulership of Henry V
had been secured, [Ekkehard] reworked the history once again with the obvious intention of
completely excusing Henry V’s action against his father; this is why the image of the old
emperor is now painted with the darkest of colours, since an inner justification seemed
possible only in this way. The old stock of facts is thoroughly corrected in a methodical way to
such an extent that the opposite picture of Henry IV now emerges. We remember how
Josephus methodically reworked his old administrative report for the War, and the War for the
Antiquities and we sense the complete parallel. But it goes even further; that is to say, in the
meantime the Chronicon of Sigebert of Gembloux appeared and Ekkehard took advantage of it
by interweaving information from it into his [own] work. Thus the additional sources
[Nebenquellen] grow into the work in a secondary manner just as we inevitably determined for
Polybius and Josephus. This book of Ekkehard, which has been reworked to such an extent,
exists before us in three versions that differ from each other (C, D, E). C is destined for Henry V
and was presented to him with an effusive dedication at the earliest [in] 1114; in the meantime
Henry V had followed in the footsteps of his father’s politics and for this reason it was
absolutely impossible to vilify this father to the son, who had become similar to him, in the
same manner as had occurred in version B. The history for the years 1105 and 1106 is therefore
formulated afresh, aspiring to a generally calmer tone with respect to Henry IV. – We
remember how Josephus formulated the War for Agrippa.
Versions D and E begin with a prologue bearing a similar attitude towards Henry V,
Ekkehard gazes upon the emperor, filled with inner devotion; however, the attitude in
Germany sharpens progressively against him; Ekkehard now again revises the old parts and
supplements his historical work by degrees up to [the year] 1125. When he arrived at that
point he had become an outright opponent to Henry V, who was attacked most fiercely with
213