Retoryka opisów śmierci Heroda Agryppy I

Abstract

Accounts of the last moments of the life of an individual, and his or her death itself inevitably incorporate an interpretatory dimension. This is caused by the selectiveness of the representation, in which some facts are emphasized and others, out of necessity, are ignored. Ancient historiography frequently undertook to note the decease of a monarch. A relation of the death of a king, who was a representative of one of the main social institutions, became an opportunity to state his importance, which in turn functions as a means of propagating specific values and worldviews, and a way to strengthen the identity of a given social group. Particular accounts of a ruler’s death thus contain a persuasive dimension, by which the authors argue their own version of events and perspective. This rhetoric may be observed in the selected descriptions of the decease of Herod Agrippa, a Jewish ruler from the 1st century AD. The Christian relation from the Acts of Apostles and the Jewish versions from Josephus with later reference to them by Eusebius of Caesarea will be discussed. This analysis will not attempt to reconstruct the real history of the last moments of Agrippa on the basis of differing accounts. It will rather aim at underlining the multiple means of persuasion employed by individual authors. The paper will also tough upon the phenomenon of auto persuasion of the reader. A contemporary reader comparing available descriptions of Herod’s death observes new connections between them, which provide the basis for new meanings not present individually in the sources themselves. Ultimately it turns out that it is not only the separate accounts which aim to convince, but also their juxtaposition by the reader which also contains a persuasive dimension.