The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

vicious words. Thus the same versions, which begin with an [244] elogy of Henry V, conclude
with an epilogue execrating the emperor.
It cannot be denied that in Ekkehard[’s writings] just as many political views can be
detected as there are versions of his work. In this case they are arguably determined more by
the change in Henry V’s political attitude than by a transformation in Ekkehard who supported
the papacy and for this reason was compelled to change his attitude towards Henry V (cf. Gold
in the dissertation mentioned on page 242). But this distinction has no bearing on the problem
with which we are occupied; rather this meets with its perfect parallel in the various phases of
the formulation of Ekkehard’s work: Henry IV is judged favourably in the parts adopted from
Frutolf, in version B he is attacked severely, in C there is again a milder perception; Henry V is
celebrated as the agent of a new era in B and C, and the first parts of D and E, at the end he is
accursed. Do such facts not remind us of the evolution of someone like Josephus who in the
War tweaked history for Agrippa and Titus, who in the Antiquities held himself at great distance
from them, only to invoke them again after all as his witnesses after the year 100? Is it not
again something similar if Polybius was devoted to the Romans up to 150, if he experienced the
personal catastrophe in 146 from which he was ultimately saved by Stoic philosophy and
pragmatism?
Ekkehard’s manuscripts can teach us even more. We have many versions of the work,
to be sure, but certainly not all; behind versions D and E there must be another, which did not
include the conclusion that stood in opposition to the prologue (Wattenbach, Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter bis zur Mitte des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, vol. 2, page 193). But
ultimately both these versions contain traces of the entire preceding development, which we
are able to detect externally due to the preservation of the other manuscripts. Now, imagine if
version A of Frutolf and versions B and C of Ekkehard were not preserved, and only D and E
existed, then we have the parallel to the ancient texts of [authors like] Josephus and Polybius.
Just as the traces of Ekkehard’s entire development are still available now in D and E, so also
the history of [their] works can be [attained] from a reading of the text of Polybius and
Josephus. The text of Polybius and [245] Josephus resembles versions D and E; by means of
criticism we step beyond them to the older versions; Frutolf’s A and Ekkehard’s B and C
demonstrate that our analyses of Polybius and Josephus are fundamentally valid and therefore
necessary.
214