In Zutot 6 (2009), Luuk Huitink and Jan Willem van Henten presented the journal’s readers with an effort to advance the discussion of Josephus’ ancient audiences, by challenging my interpretation of Josephus’ work, which has taken into account scholarship on book production in first-century Rome. Since they misreported my work, and ignored the only essay I have devoted to the subject, their essay misfired. I am grateful to the editors of Zutot for a chance to correct their misrepresentation.
S. Mason‘Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’Bellum Iudaicumin the Context of a Flavian Audience’ in J. Sievers and G. Lembi eds. Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Leiden 2005) 70–100.
P. White‘The Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage,’Harvard Studies in Classical Philology79 (1975) 265–300; T.P. Wiseman Roman Studies: Literary and Historical (Liverpool 1987) esp. 252–256.
Cf. R. Starr‘The Circulation of Texts in the Classical World,’Mnemosyne40 (1987) 213–223; C. Salles Lire à Rome (Paris 1992) 94–110; E. Fantham Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius (Baltimore 1996) 120–121 183–221; D. Potter Literary Texts and the Roman Historian (London 1999) 23–44; C. Pelling Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London 2000) 1–17. Such authoritative surveys of individual texts as the Cambridge History of Classical Literature (Cambridge 1982–1989) and G.B. Conte’s Latin Literature: A History trans. J.B. Sodolow (Baltimore 1994) likewise display the classicist’s familiar focus on the social context of each author as do countless articles on literary patronage and literary circles.